The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApprove the repeal of Municipal Code Section 5.95 regulating State of California—Natural Resources Agency CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND WILDLIFE 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT j RECEIPT# 30-2015 0340 STATE CLEARING HOUSE#(jfapp&9bje) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE.TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY 2011111053 LEADAGENCY DATE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 05/06/2015 COUNTY/STATEAGENCYOF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER Orange 201585000363 PROJECTTITLE REPEAL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE(HBMC)SECTION 5.59 REGULATING THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS AND RECYCLABLE BAGS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS(REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE) PROJECTAPPUCANTNAME PHONENUMBER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 714 ) 374-5317 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 2000 MAIN ST 3RD FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PROJECT APPLICANT Check appropriate box): El Local PublicAgency ®School District El Other Special District [3 StateAgency Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ®Environmental Impact Report(EIR) $3,069.75 $ n Mitigated/Negative Declaration(MND)(ND) $2,210.00 $ ®Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0.00 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs(CRP) $1,043.75 $ 0.00 ®County Administrative Fee $50.00 $ 0.00 F Project that is exempt from fees E3 Notice of Exemption(attach) CDFW No Effect Determination(attach) ®Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: M Cash ®Credit ©Check ®Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ 0.00 i i SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME AND TITLE ANGEL CARDENAS, DEPUTY ORIGINAL-PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-CDFW/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a(Rev.11/14) Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Hugh Nguyen, Clerk-Recorder POSTED I 11111�1111111111 11�11 111111111111111 111f1 111111111111111 11111 Jill No FEE * $ R 0 0 0 7 5 0 3 1 4 0 $ 20158500036311:33 am 05/06/15 FILED MAY 0 6 2015 176 304 Z02 HUGH NGUYEPd,CLERK-RECORDER 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Y. c DEPUTY MAY 0 6 2015 ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER DEPARTMENT BY. si _DEPUTY NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: From: ❑ Office of Planning and Research City of Huntington Beach P.O.Box 3044 Planning and Building Department Sacramento,Ca 95812-3044 2000 Main St.,3rd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ® Orange County Clerk Recorder's Office Hayden Beckman,Assistant Planner Public Services Division 714-374-5317 P.O.Box 238 Santa Ana,CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. State Clearinghouse Number: 2011111053 Project Title: Repeal of Huntington Beach Municipal Code HBMC)Section 5.95 Regulating the Use of Plastic Can oft Bags and Recyclable Paper Carryout Bags(Reusable Bag Ordinance) Applicant Name and Address: City of Huntington Beach,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 0 Project Location (include county): Huntington Beach, Orange County,California Project Description:The project includes the repeal Huntington Beach Municipal Code(HBMC) Section 5.95 commonly referred to as the"Reusable Bag Ordinance"(Ordinance),which prohibits the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within Huntington Beach,and establishes a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of rec cly able paper cane-out bags at all stores that meet at least one of the criteria listed by the Ordinance.The repeal of the Ordinance will remove all existing Ci1y regulations of plastic bags set forth in the HBMC including:the existing ban on the issuance of plastic c out bags;the minimum 10-cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at affected stores citywide; and the requirement that stores provide reusable bags to customers either for sale or at no charge. This is to advise that the City of Huntington Beach City Council has approved the above described (0 Lead Agency or®Responsible)project on May 4,2015,and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project U will, ®will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ® An Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report(No.2011-002)was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. State of Califomia—Natural Resources Acencv ft7MUND G.BROMM,JR Govemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON N.BDMA#,Director South Cost Region - 3883 Ruffin Road - San Diego,CA 92123 www.wildlife.ca goo i= 15 LU CE Ellin Fee o Effect Determination o FILEApplicant Name and Address: N Y City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92W MAY 0 6 2015 � ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER DEPARTMENT CEQALead Agency:City of Huntington Beach X z Project Name: Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance DEPUTY CEQA Document Type: Environmental Impart Report = State Clearing House Number and/or local agency ID,number: SCH No. 201 1 1 1 1 053 Project Location- Citywide. Brief Project Description:The City proposes to adopt a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance that would prohibit distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within Huntington Beach, and establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry- out bags at all stores that meet at least one of three criteria. All stores affected by the proposed ordinance would be required to provide reusable bags to customers either for sale or at no charge, and each store would be strongly encouraged to promote the use of reusable bags through staff education and customer outreach. Determination: Based on a review of the project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees(Fish and Game Code [FGC] Section 711.4(c)) the project has no effect on fish, wildlife or their habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA firing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Piease retain this original determination for your records. Local.lead agencies are required to file two copies of this determination with the county clerk at time of filing of the (Notice of Determination (NOD) after the project is approved.. State lead agencies are required to file two copies of this determination with the Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) at the time of filing the NOD. If you do not file a copy of this determination as appropriate with the county clerk or State Clearinghouse at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid CEQA, Filing Fee No Effect Determination form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to FGC�ection 711.41cj(3). DFG Approved t3y:< �- L-� .Jenntfer Edwards Date: 04/03/2013 Title: Environmental Scientist f Conserving California's Wi fe Since 1870 meuutueu in urnciai Kecoras, orange county Renee Ramirez,Assistr Clerk-Recorder FILED !IIII!I'IIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIIIIIl1111 Jill IIIJill NO FEE APR 2013 * $ R 0 0 0 5 7 4 4 3 7 7 $ 201385000259 9:35 am 04/05/13 ORANGE COUNTY CL RK-RECORDER DEPARTMENT 242 OR03 Z03 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPUTY BY: E§TTCE OF DETERMINATION INAT ION To: From: ❑ Office of Planning and Research City of Huntington Beach P.O.Box 3044 Planning and Building Department Sacramento,Ca 95812-3044 2000 Main St.,3rd Flr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ® Orange County Clerk Recorder's Office Hayden Beckman,Planning Aide Public Services Division 714-374-5317 P.O.Box 238 Santa Ana,CA 92702 c SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of Public Resources Code. N State Clearinghouse Number: 2011111053 Ul) 4 Project Title: Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance V 0 Applicant Name and Address: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach 92648 m Project Location(include county): Huntington Beach, Orange County,California Project Description: The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial oint of sale purchases within Huntington Beach and establish a ten 0 0)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper -out bags at all stores that meet at least one of the criteria listed by the Ordinance All stores affected by the proposed Ordinance would be required to provide reusable bags to customers either for sale or at no charge and each store would be strongly encouraged to promote the use of reusable bags through staff education and customer outreach This is to advise that the City of Huntington Beach City Council has approved the above described (El Lead Agency or❑Responsible) project on April 1,2013,and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project❑will, ®will not,have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ®An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation Measures ❑were, ®were not,made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan❑ was,®was not, adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations ❑was,®was not, adopted for this project. 6. Findings ®were, ❑were not,made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Dept.ID PL 15-007 Page 1 of 3' Meeting,Date:4120/2015 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - _y4 REQUEST FOR, CITY COUNCIL- ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/20/2015 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A.Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess,AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve the repeal of Municipal Code Section 5.95 regulating the use of plastic carryout bags and recyclable paper carryout bags, and certify an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 2011-002 analyzing the action to repeal the Municipal Code section 5.95 floss �-soLw�o•� �. �,o�s-i� Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an ordinance to repeal Municipal Code Section 5.95, commonly referred to as the "Reusable Bag Ordinance" (Ordinance). The current Ordinance in part prohibits the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases in Huntington Beach and mandates a 10-cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper.carryout bags at affected stores. Prior to the repeal, the City Council must also consider certifying an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2011-002. The Addendum identifies that the:repeal of the Reusable Bag Ordinance does not create any new significant environmental impacts as compared to those analyzed in the adopted Final EIR No. 2011-002. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A) Certify the draft Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 2011-002 by adopting Resolution No, 2015-17, "A Resolution of the City Council of the.City of Huntington Beach approving an addendum to the final Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2011111053 (for the Reusable Bag Ordinance)(Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance) and determining that said addendum,together with other previously approved environmental documentation, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed repeal of the Reusable Bag Ordinance,"for the repeal of Municipal Code Section 5.95 Use of Plastic Carryout Bags and Recyclable Paper(ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and, B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4053, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach repealing Chapter 5.95 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to reusable bags." (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Continue the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002 and Ordinance No. 4053 and direct staff accordingly. Item 11. - 1 1 -274- Dept.ID PL 1"07 Page 2 of 3 Meeting Date:4/20/2015 2. Deny the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002 and Ordinance No. 4053. Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: Citywide The project would repeal Section 5.95 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, commonly referred to as the Reusable Bag Ordinance, which in part prohibits the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach and mandates a.10-cent charge for recyclable paper carryout bags at certain retail stores citywide. The repeal of the Reusable Bag Ordinance will remove all existing City regulations of plastic bags set forth in the Chapter including: the existing ban on the issuance of plastic carryout bags; the minimum 10-cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at affected stores citywide; and the requirement that stores provide reusable bags to customers, either for sale or at no charge. B. BACKGROUND: The Ordinance and Final EIR No. 2011-002 were approved by the City Council on March 18, 2013. The Ordinance became operative on November 1, 2013. At the January 20, 2015, regular meeting, the City Council voted 6-1 to repeal the Ordinance and conduct the necessary environmental review (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The current Reusable Bag Ordinance prohibits the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach and mandates a 10-cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all grocery stores, supermarkets, drug stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, food marts, and farmer's markets. All stores affected by the Ordinance are required to provide reusable bags to customers either for sale or at no charge. Each store is strongly encouraged to promote the use of reusable bags through staff education and customer outreach. If the Ordinance is repealed, stores will be able to distribute carryout bags as they see fit. Staff is recommending approval of the repeal as directed by the City Council on January 20, 2015. Environmental Status: Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance in 2013, the City prepared draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2011-002 in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City Council adopted Final EIR No. 2011-002 on March 18, 2013. Final EIR No. 2011-002 provided an analysis of impacts by issue area as identified in the Initial Study, including air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and hydrology and water quality. As required by CEQA, the EIR also examined a range of alternatives to the then-proposed Ordinance including a "No Project' alternative, which assumed that the Reusable Bag Ordinance would not be adopted and retail stores would continue to provide single use plastic and paper bags free of charge to customers. The proposed repeal of the Reusable Bag Ordinance would result in similar conditions and impacts as analyzed under the No Project alternative in Section 6.0, Alternatives, of Final EIR No. 2011- xB -275- Item 11. - 2 Dept.ID PL 15-007 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date:4/20/2015 002. According to Section 15164 of the CEQA 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 proposed repeal of the Ordinance would have no new significant environmental effects and since the proposed repeal does not require substantial changes to the No Project alternative, major revisions of the EIR analysis are not warranted. The City retained Rincon Consultants, the environmental consultant that prepared the original EIR, to conduct environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. Based on the analysis, a draft Addendum to the Final EIR No. 2011-002 was prepared (ATTACHMENT NO. 1, Exhibit A). The draft Addendum to the Final EIR includes a comparison of the impacts of the proposed repeal to those identified in the City's approved Ordinance. The draft Addendum concludes that impacts associated with the repeal of the Ordinance related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and hydrology and water quality would be similar to impacts identified in the Final EIR, as no impacts would be considered significant. Staff is recommending certification of the draft Addendum to the Final EIR No. 2011-002 as adequate and complete. Strategic Plan Goal: Improve quality of life Aftachment(s): 1. Resolution No. 2015-17, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an addendum to the final Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2011111053 (for the Reusable Bag Ordinance) (Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance)and determining that said addendum, together with other previously approved environmental documentation, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed repeal of the Reusable Bag Ordinance," including Exhibit A, Draft Addendum to the Final EIR No. 2011- 002. 2. Ordinance No. 4053, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach repealing Chapter 5.95 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to reusable bags," including HBMC Chapter 5.95 Legislative Draft 3. January 20, 2015 Memo Re: Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance SH:KDC:JV:HB Item 11. - 3 xB -276- Ai ACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 015-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#201 1 1 1 1053) FOR THE REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE (SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE) AND DETERMINING THAT SAID ADDENDUM, TOGETHER WITH OTHER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, SERVES AS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002, State Clearinghouse #201 1 1 1 1053 ("EIR"), was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the Reusable Bag Ordinance, codified as Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.95; and The EIR was certified by City Council Resolution 2013-12, approved on March 18, 2013; and The City Council is considering whether to repeal HBMC Chapter 5.95 in its entirety (the "Project"); and In connection with the Project, an Addendum to the EIR, dated April 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Addendum"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, has been prepared in order to determine whether any significant environmental impacts which were not identified in the previously approved EIR would result, or whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more severe; and The EIR and the Addendum shall be referred to herein collectively as the "CEQA Documents." In connection with the Project and the City Council's review of the Addendum, the City Council has independently reviewed all of the CEQA Documents and has exercised its independent judgment in making the findings and determinations set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. 2. That the Addendum was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 1 15-4656/119723.doc Resolution 2015-17 3. That, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically: a. There have not been any substantial changes that require major revisions of the CEQA Documents because of new significant environnental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the CEQA Documents due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final EIR was certified as complete that shows any of the following: (a) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR, (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shovoi in the Final EIR; (c) 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 proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alteniative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 3. That, pursuant to the above findings, the City Council determines that the previously-approved CEQA Documents, together with the Addendum, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proj ect. 2 15-4656/119723.doc Resolution 2015-17 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 0 t h day of April 2015. Ma REVIEWED PPROVED: A7;ZZZ-- �Iitfjanager City Attorney INITIATE ND APPROVED: Dir ctor o Panning and Building 3 15-4656/119723.doc Resolution 2015-17 EXHIBIT A Exhibit "A" Resolution 2 GI 5'-i'7 'City ®f Hu-ntingt®n Beach m ear the t IseT J, s tnag00inanc; ,:,e r : le Y, .. Administrative Draft Addendum t® she = final EIS a SCSI #2011111053 „ a AM 10 "'3` Y i1 — m y r - � April 2015 € PRE: . l Mg AN fit,, a Huntington Beach Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH #2011111053 Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building 2000 Main Street, PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Mr. Hayden Beckman, Assistant Planner (714) 374-5317 Prepared with the assistance of. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 April 2015 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the Final EIR TABLE OF CONTENT'S Page Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription............................................................................................................1 EnvironmentalImpacts....................................................................................................3 AirQuality ................................................................................................................3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................7 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................S Conclusion ......................................................................................................................10 References ........................................................................................................................11 City of Huntington Beach Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum This page intentionally left blank ROW City of Huntington Beach Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum INTRODUCTION This document is an addendum to the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) that was adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council in March 2013 (SCH#2011111053).The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance("the Bag Ordinance")went into effect in November 2013.The Bag Ordinance prohibits the distribution of plastic carry-out bags and requires a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags at specified retail establishments located within the City of Huntington Beach's corporate limits. All stores affected by the Bag Ordinance are required to provide reusable bags to customers either for sale or at no charge, and each store is encouraged to promote the use of reusable bags through staff education and customer outreach.Prior to adoption of the ordinance,an estimated 102.2 million single-use plastic bags were used in Huntington Beach annually. Using the bag use assumptions from the Final EIR,it is estimated that currently with the Bag Ordinance approximately 5.1 million plastic bags are utilized annually in Huntington Beach. The City is now proposing to repeal the Bag Ordinance and thus conditions related to carryout bag use at the specified retailers would return to pre-ordinance conditions(prior to November 2013).With the proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance,all stores in Huntington Beach could distribute plastic carry-out bags and would not be required to charge for recyclable paper carry- out bags or provide reusable bags.The proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance would result in similar conditions and impacts as analyzed under Alternative 1:The No Project Alternative in Section 6.0,Alternatives, of the Final EIR. According to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) 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 action being contemplated involves repealing the Bag Ordinance and adopting a project similar to the No Project Alternative analyzed in the Final EIR.The City's proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance would have no new significant environmental effects. Since the proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance does not require substantial changes to the No Project Alternative,major revisions of the EIR analysis are not warranted. Further the repeal of the Bag Ordinance would not create any new significant impacts as compared to the project studied in the EIR. 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 CEQA. This addendum includes a description of the currently proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance and a comparison of the impacts of the proposed repeal to those identified for the City's approved Bag Ordinance,which was studied in the Final EIR that the City certified in March 2013. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance("Bag Ordinance")would remove the existing ban on the issuance of plastic carryout bags and a minimum ten(10)cent City of Huntington Beach 1 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at"stores',as defined by the Bag Ordinance. It would also remove the requirement that stores provide reusable bags to customers,either for sale or at no charge. Thus,stores would be able to distribute carryout bags how they see fit,similar to the way bags were distributed to customers prior to the Bag Ordinance going into effect in November 2013. Single-use plastic and paper carryout bags would generally be available free-of-charge to customers at most retail stores in Huntington Beach. In addition,reusable carryout bags would be available for purchase at most retailers. With repeal of the Bag Ordinance,plastic carryout bag use would increase compared to use under current conditions with the Bag Ordinance and total use of plastic carryout bags would be similar to conditions prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance. Repealing the Bag Ordinance would likely reduce the use of paper carryout bags and reusable bags as it is anticipated that customers would utilize"free" or no cost plastic carryout bags distributed by retailers. Using the assumptions of bag use from the Final FIR,it is estimated that currently with the Bag Ordinance(as shown in Table 1 below) approximately 5.1 million plastic bags,45.99 million paper bags and approximately 982,676 reusable bags are utilized per year in Huntington Beach. Table 2 shows the estimated plastic bag use in the City if the Bag Ordinance is repealed.As shown,plastic bag use would increase by approximately 99.39 million bags per year. Plastic bag use in Huntington Beach would be approximately 104.5 million bags per year,similar to the estimated bag use prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance. Table 1 Existing Bag Use with Bag Ordinance Replacement Bags Used Type of Bag Assumption Explanation Post- Ordinance Adoption Because the Ordinance does not apply to all retailers, Single-Use Plastic 5% remaining some single-use plastic bags would remain in 5,109,917 circulation. Although the volume of a single-use paper carryout bag is generally 150%of the volume of a single-use plastic Single Use Paper 45% bag, such that fewer paper bags would be needed to 45,989,254 carry the same number of items, it is conservatively assumed that paper would replace plastic at a 1:1 ratio. Although a reusable bag can, by definition, be used 125 Reusable 50% times, it is conservatively assumed that a reusable bag 982,676 would be used by a customer once per week for one year, or 52 times. Total Bag Use With Ordinance 52,081,848 Total Single-Use Plastic Bag Use With Ordinance 5,109,917 [1]Rates utilized in the City of Huntington Beach Final EIR, SCH#2011111053, Certified March 2013. City of Huntington Beach 2 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Table 2 Estimated Single-Use Plastic Bag Use After Ordinance Repeal Number of Population single-use Total Bags Area [�] plastic bags Explanation Used Used per Annually Person [2] While it is acknowledged that as a result of the Ordinance, some peoples'behaviors may have changed Huntington 195,999 533.18 and they may solely use reusable bags, it is assumed 104,502,747 Beach that 100%of the people who switched from plastic bags with the ban would switch back to using plastic bags after the repeal. Total Increase in Single-Use Plastic Bags 99,392,830 [1]California Department of Finance,E-5, May 2014 [2]Based on per bag use assumptions in original Huntington Beach Final EIR, Certified March 2013 The City's objectives for the Bag Ordinance,as identified in the Final EIR's Section 2.0,Project Description,included: • Reducing the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by retailers and used by customers in Huntington Beach • Deterring the use of paper bags by customers in Huntington Beach • Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in Huntington Beach • Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags,such as impacts to biological resources(including marine environments) and water quality • Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems,aesthetics and the marine environment(Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) With repeal of the Bag Ordinance, these objectives of the Bag Ordinance would also be removed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section addresses each of the environmental issues studied in the Final EIR,comparing the effects of the proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance with the effects of the Bag Ordinance that was the subject of the certified Final EIR(March 2013). Air Quality Manufacture and Use In the Final EIR,it was determined(see Impact AQ-1) that while the Bag Ordinance would potentially alter processing activities related to bag production,which has the potential to increase air pollutant emissions, the Bag Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number of single-use plastic carryout bags,thereby reducing the total number of bags manufactured and overall emissions associated with bag manufacture and use.Therefore,air quality impacts related to alteration of processing activities were determined to be Class IV, City of Huntington Beach 3 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum beneficial. Table 3 below shows the estimated emissions associated with bag manufacture and use under existing conditions with the Bag Ordinance. Table 3 Existing Air Pollution Emissions by Bag Type -with Bag Ordinance Existing#of Ozone AA Emissions Existing Ozone Existing AA Carryout Bag Bags Used per Emissions(kg) (kg) per 1,000 Emissions per Emissions Type Year per1,000 bags bags year(kg) per year(kg) [1,2] [1,3] [4] [4] Single-Use Plastic 51109,917 0.023 1.084 118 5,539 Recycled 45,989,254 003 2.06 1,380 94,738 Paper Reusable 982,676 0.032 3.252 31 3,196 Total Existing Emissions with Ordinance 1,529 103,473 Emissions Pre-Ordinance 2,351 110,783 Net Change -822 -7,310 (Ordinance minus Pre-Ordinance) %Change -54% -7% [11 Impact rate per bag as stated in Stephen L Joseph, 2010, Ecobilan, 2004, FRIDGE,2002,and Green Cities California MEA, 2010,Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. [2]Emissions per 1,000 bags from Ecobilan,2004, Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. [3]Emissions per 1,000 bags from FRIDGE,2002 and Green Cities California MEA, 2010,Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011 [4]Emissions per year=(Emissions in kg per 1,000 bags rate x number of bags used per year/1,000) With repeal of the Bag Ordinance,air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture and use may increase as the overall number of single-use plastic carryout bags would increase by approximately 99.39 million plastic bags per year.Table 4 shows the anticipated emissions if the Bag Ordinance were to be repealed. Ozone emissions and atmospheric acidification emissions associated with single use plastic bag manufacturing and use would increase by approximately 875 kg per year for ozone and 9,808 kg per year for atmospheric acidification compared to existing conditions with the Bag Ordinance.However,these impacts would not be significant because any manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to existing Air Pollution Control District regulations and permit requirements for operations. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that manufacturing facilities would not generate emissions conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan,violate any air quality standard,contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation,or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the air quality pollutant emissions from manufacturing carryout bags would be similar to the conditions in the City prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach 4 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Table 4 Air Pollution Emissions by Bag Type -with Repeal Proposed# Ozone AA Emissions Ozone AA Emissions Carryout Bag of Bags Emissions(kg) (kg)per 1,000 Emissions per per year(kg) Type Used per per 1,000 bags bags year(kg) [4] Year [1,2] [1,3] [4] Single-Use Plastic 104,502,747 0.023 1.084 2404 113,281 Recycled Paper 0 0.03 2.06 0 0 Reusable 0 0.032 3.252 0 0 Total Proposed Emissions with Repeal 2,404 113,281 Existing Emissions with Ordinance 1,529 103,473 Net Change 874.9 9,808 (Total minus Existing) % Change 57% 9% [1]Impact rate per bag as stated in Stephen L.Joseph, 2010,Ecobilan, 2004,FRIDGE,2002;and Green Cities California MEA, 2010,Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. [2]Emissions per 1,000 bags from Ecobilan, 2004,Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. [3]Emissions per 1,000 bags from FRIDGE,2002 and Green Cities California MEA,2010;Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. [4]Emissions per year=(Emissions in kg per 1,000 bags rate x number of bags used per year/1,000) Emissions Related to Truck Trips In the Final EIR(as discussed in Impact AQ-2),the Bag Ordinance was anticipated to generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers.However,emissions did not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) operational significance thresholds.Therefore, operational air quality impacts were determined to be Class III,less than significant. With repeal of the Bag Ordinance,truck trips would decrease compared to existing conditions with the Bag Ordinance as plastic bags are lighter in weight and smaller in overall size and volume compared to paper and reusable bags(thus fewer trips would be necessary to deliver bags to retailers).Table 5 summarizes the net change in truck trips as a result of repealing the Bag Ordinance.With a reduction in the number of truck trips (a reduction of approximately 173 truck trips per year),emissions associated with these truck trips would also be incrementally reduced compared to existing conditions.Thus,with repeal of the Bag Ordinance,emissions associated with truck trips would be beneficial compared to existing conditions and the air quality emissions related to carryout bag use would be similar to the conditions in the City prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance. maw City of Huntington Beach NEr 5 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Table 5 Estimated Truck Trips per Day With Repeal Carryout Bag Proposed#of Bags Number of Bags Proposed Truck Proposed Truck Type Used per Year per Truck Load[1] Trips Per Year[2] Trips per Day Single-Use Plastic 104,502,747 2,080,000 50.2 0.138 Recycled Paper 0 217,665 0.0 0.000 Reusable 0 108,862 0.0 0.000 Proposed Truck Trips for Carryout Bags with Repeal 50.2 0.138 Truck Trips for All Carryout Bags with Ordinance 222.8 0.610 Net New Truck Trips with Repeal -172.5 -0.473 [1]City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR(SCH#2010041004),January 2011. [2](Number of Carryout Bags Per Year)/(Number of Carryout Bags per Truck)=Truck Trips per Year Biological Resources In the Final EIR(see Impact BIO-1),it was determined that while the Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of paper and reusable bags within Huntington Beach,the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would incrementally reduce the amount of litter entering coastal and marine habitats,thus reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive species,plant communities,and coastal wetland areas.Tlus was considered a Class IV,beneficial, effect(Impact BIO-1 in the Final EIR). The proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance would incrementally reduce the number of paper and reusable bags within Huntington Beach.However,the increase in the amount of plastic carryout bags could incrementally increase the amount of litter entering coastal and marine habitats,thus increasing litter-related impacts to sensitive species,plant communities,and coastal wetland areas. All carryout bags,including single-use plastic,paper,and reusable bags,have the potential to affect coastal habitats such as the Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve when bags are improperly disposed of.These bags can become litter that enters the storm drain system and ultimately enters into coastal and marine environments.As described in the Setting of EIR Section 4.2,Biological Resources,litter that enters coastal habitats can adversely affect sensitive species that inhabit coastal and marine environments,including sea turtles,seals,whales, otters, or bird species as a result of ingestion or entanglement. Each type of carryout bag's potential to become litter varies and is based on the number of bags disposed of as well as the bag's weight and material. Repealing the existing Bag Ordinance would increase plastic bag usage by 99.39 million bags per year compared to existing conditions in 2015 with the Bag Ordinance (from 5.1 million to 104.5 million bags per year). This increase in plastic bags would generally increase litter-related impacts to sensitive species,plant communities,and coastal wetland areas compared to conditions with the Bag Ordinance implemented. Impacts for the proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance would be similar to the impacts of the No Project Alternative identified in the Final EIR. As stated in EIR Section 6.0,Alternatives,the No Project Alternative (which is similar to repealing the Bag Ordinance) would not achieve the Bag Ordinance's beneficial effects relative City of Huntington Beach 6 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum to biological resources(sensitive species),nor would it result in the general benefits with respect to litter accumulation that are expected to result from implementation of the Bag Ordinance. However,litter related impacts would be the same or similar to conditions prior to the adoption of the Bag Ordinance. Further,stormwater discharges from the City are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit system.Locally,Huntington Beach is a part of the Santa Ana Region Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange,Orange County Flood Control District,and The Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Stormwater Runoff Orange County(Order No. R8-2009-0030,NPDES No. CAS618030) (Municipal NPDES Permit). As one of the co-permittees of this Municipal NPDES Permit,the City is responsible for the management of storm drain systems within their jurisdiction and are required to implement management programs, monitoring programs,implementation plans and all best management practices(BMPs) outlined in the Drainage Area Master Plan(DAMP),and take any other actions as may be necessary to meet the Maximum Extent Practicable(MEP) standard.The corresponding City of Huntington Beach Municipal NPDES Permit Local Implementation Plan of 2011 (City of Huntington Beach LIP)includes a wide range of continuing and enhanced BMPs and control techniques.These BMPs and control techniques would reduce litter related storm drain and water quality impacts and thus would also reduce litter impacts on biological resources.In addition,the Citywide Urban Runoff Management Plan(CURMP)provides a broad framework for managing the quantity and quality of all urban runoff that reaches receiving waters from the land surfaces and through the storm drain system within the City. With adherence to existing regulations,impacts to biological resources related to litter would be less than significant with repeal of the Bag Ordinance. Further,any litter related impacts would be the same or similar to conditions prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance and thus would not result in any new significant impacts to sensitive species or to coastal and marine ecosystems. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Final EIR(as discussed in Impact GHG-1) determined that implementation of the Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions compared to existing conditions by approximately 2,977 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent units(CO2E)per year.However,this amount of emissions did not exceed recommended SCAQMD thresholds and did not conflict with any applicable plan,policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.Thus impacts were considered to be Class III,less than significant. With repeal of the Bag Ordinance,GHG emissions would incrementally decrease compared to existing conditions with the Bag Ordinance and return to levels similar to those prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance.The levels of GHG emissions for bag use are directly related to the manufacturing,transport,and disposal of single-use plastic,recycled paper,and reusable carryout bags.The manufacturing process to make all types of carryout bags requires fuel and energy consumption.This generates GHG emissions,including COz,CH4,NzOX,fluorinated gases,and ozone. In addition,fertilizers that are used on crops for resources such as cotton, which are then utilized in the manufacture of reusable bags,also have the potential to emit N20. The amount of GHG emissions varies depending on the type and quantity of carryout bags produced.Compared to truck trips and disposal,the manufacturing process is the largest City of Huntington Beach 7 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum emitter of GHGs due to the high volume of fuel and energy consumption that is used during the process. Delivery trucks that transport carryout bags from manufacturers or distributors to Huntington Beach retailers also create GHG emissions. GHG emissions from truck trips result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels and include CO2,CHI,and N20. Using the same emission rates per bag as used in the FIR,the following table estimates GHG emissions related to repealing the Bag Ordinance.As shown in Table 6, GHG emissions would be reduced by approximately 2,915 metric tons CO2E per year compared to current conditions with the Bag Ordinance in place.This reduction is primarily related to higher emissions rates for paper and reusable bags compared to single-use plastic bags and additional truck trips needed to carry paper and reusable bags to retailers in Huntington Beach.As the repeal of the Bag Ordinance would reduce GHG emissions compared to current conditions,this would be a beneficial impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. Emissions would be similar to conditions prior to implementation of the Bag Ordinance and impacts would not be significant. Table 6 Proposed GHG Emissions by Bag Type with Repeal Carryout Bag Proposed#of GHG Impact Rate CO2E per year CO2E per Person Bags Used per Type Year (metric tons CO2E) (metric tons) (metric tons)[4] Single-Use Plastic 104,502,747 0.04 per 1,500 bags[1] 2787 0.0142 Recycled Paper 0 0.1188 per 1,000 bags[2] 0 0.0000 Reusable 0 5.24 per 1,000 bags[3] 0 0.0000 Total GHG Emissions with Repeal 2,787 0.0142 Existing GHG Emissions with Ordinance 5,702 0.0297 Net Change(Total minus Existing) 2,915 -0.0155 CO2E=Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units [1]Based on Boustead Report,2007,Santa Monica Single use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. [2]10%reduction(from a rate of 3.3 to 2.97)based on the Scottish Report(AEA Technology, 2005)and the Santa Clara County Negative Declaration, October 2010 based on Environmental Defense Fund's Paper Calculator. [3]Based on Environment Agency—United Kingdom government report, 2011. [4]Emissions per person are divided by the 2014 population in Huntington Beach Hydrology and Water Qualily Water Quality from Litter The Final FIR(as discussed in Impact HWQ-1) determined that while the Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of single-use paper and reusable bags used in Huntington Beach,the overall reduction in the total amount of carryout bags would 'incrementally reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains,water ways and receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean,improving water quality.This was determined to be a Class IV,beneficial, effect. Repeal of the Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of plastic bags used in Huntington Beach and thus would incrementally increase the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains,water ways and receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean,degrading water quality compared to existing conditions. City of Huntington Beach 8 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum Each type of carryout bag's potential to become litter is based on the bag's weight,material and quantity of bags used within Huntington Beach. Single-use plastic bags that become litter may enter storm drains from surface water runoff or may be blown directly into local waterways by the wind. Single-use plastic bag litter that enters the storm drain system can block or clog drains resulting in contamination(Green Cities California MEA,2010). With repeal of the Bag Ordinance,the overall amount of single-use carryout bags used in Huntington Beach per year would increase by approximately 99.39 million bags.Therefore, repeal of the Bag Ordinance could increase the amount of litter associated with single-use plastic carryout bags compared to existing conditions.Consequently,water quality may degrade from repeal of the Bag Ordinance compared to existing conditions with the Bag Ordinance implemented,as the amount of litter may increase in the City that could enter storm drains and local waterways as well as the receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean,thus degrading water quality and increasing the potential for storm drain blockage. Although plastic litter may increase with repeal of the Bag Ordinance compared to existing conditions with the Ordinance in place,as stated in the EIR Section 4.4,Hydrology and Water Quality, page 4.4-4,5,and as described above in the discussion of Biological Resources, stormwater discharges from the City are regulated under the NPDES permit system and locally, Huntington Beach is a part of the regional Municipal NPDES Permit(Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030)). As one of the co-permittees of this Municipal NPDES Permit,the City is responsible for the management of storm drain systems within their jurisdiction and are required to implement management programs,monitoring programs,implementation plans and all BMPs outlined in the DAMP.The corresponding City of Huntington Beach LIP includes a wide range of continuing and enhanced BMPs and control techniques that would reduce litter related storm drain and water quality impacts. In addition,the CURMP provides a broad framework for managing the quantity and quality of all urban runoff that reaches receiving waters from the land surfaces and through the storm drain system within the City. With adherence to existing regulations,impacts to water quality related to litter would be less than significant with the repeal of the Bag Ordinance. Further, any litter related impacts would be the same or similar to conditions prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance and thus would not result in any new significant impacts to water quality. Water Quality Associated ztrith Manufacturing Bags The Final EIR(as discussed in Impact HWQ-2) determined that an increase in the number of paper and reusable bags used in the City could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production,which could potentially degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However,it was determined that 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 altering bag processing activities were considered Class III,less than significant. The manufacturing process for single-use plastic,single-use paper,and reusable carryout bags utilize various chemicals and materials. Conventional single-use plastic bags are a product of the petrochemical industry and are typically produced by independent manufacturers who purchase virgin resin from petrochemical companies or obtain non-virgin resin from recyclers City of Huntington Beach 9 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum or other sources. Single-use plastic bags begin the manufacturing process with the conversion of crude oil or natural gas alto hydrocarbon monomers,which are then further processed into polymers.These polymers are heated to form plastic resins,which are then blown through tubes to create the air pocket of the bag. Once cooled,the plastic film is stretched to the desired size of the bag and cut into individual bags (Green Cities California MEA,2010). The plastic resin pellets are a concern when accidentally released(from spilling into storm drains during use or transport) into aquatic environments. AB 258 was enacted to address these concerns by implementing program control measures that require plastic manufacturing,handling,and transportation facilities to implement best management practices to control discharges (accidental release from spilling)of preproduction plastics.This includes containment systems, careful storage of pre-production plastics,and the use of capture devices to collect any spills. Products used in the process to manufacture single-use plastic bags, such as petroleum and natural gas,also have the potential to be released as result of an accident during transport or use. However,regulatory agencies such as the EPA set forth Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for various pollutants in soil,air,and tap water(EPA Region IX,Preliminary Remediation Goals Tables,2004). PRG concentrations can be used to screen pollutants in environmental media,trigger further investigation,and provide initial cleanup goals resulting from an accident or spill of petroleum or natural gas at a single-use plastic bag manufacturing facility. Although repealing the Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the manufacturing of single-use plastic bags for use in Huntington Beach,it would also eliminate the need to manufacture as much paper and reusable bags as currently exist in the City with the Bag Ordinance.Furthermore,any existing or potential manufacturing facilities(whether plastic, paper or reusable bag manufacturers)would be required to adhere to existing federal,state and local regulations which are intended to protect water quality.Therefore,impacts to water quality related to the potential change of processing activities as a result of repealing the Bag Ordinance would not be significant. Conclusion As discussed above,impacts associated with repeal of the Bag Ordinance related to air quality, biological resources,greenhouse gases,and hydrology and water quality were determined to have similar impacts as the Final FIR as no impacts would be considered significant.All of these issues were determined to result in either less than significant impacts or beneficial impacts. The City's proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance would have no new significant environmental effects.Since the proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance does not require substantial changes to the No Project Alternative,major revisions of the FIR analysis are not warranted.Further the repeal of the Bag Ordinance would not create any new significant impacts as compared to the project studied in the EIR. As such,a subsequent FIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines would not be warranted and an addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA. City of Huntington Beach 10 Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum References AEA Technology. 2005. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy-Extended Impact Assessment(Scottish Report),2005. AEA Technology. 2009. "Single Use Bag Study".Final report prepared for the Welsh Assembly Government,August 2009. Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags-Recyclable Plastic;Compostable,Biodegradable Plastic;and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance. California Department of Finance. May 2014. "E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the State,2010-2014,with 2010 Benchmark." City of Huntington Beach Final EIR,SCH#2011111053,Certified March 2013. City of Santa Monica.January 2011. "Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance." Final Environmental Impact Report. October 2010. County of Santa Clara. October 2010. Initial Study for Single-use Carryout Bag. Ecobilan. 2004. Environmental impact assessment of Carrefour bags. Report prepared for Carrefour by Ecobilan,February 2004. Environment Agency-United Kingdom government. "Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags". February 2011. Available online at: http://wjvw.biodeg.oro,/files/uploaded/Carrier Bags__Report_EA.pdf Fund for Research into Industrial Development,Growth and Equity(FRIDGE).2002. "Socio- Economic Impact of the Proposed Plastic Bag Regulations." Green Cities California.Master Environmental Assessment on Single-use and Reusable Bags. Prepared by ICF International,March 2010. Joseph,Stephen L.,Letter to the City of Santa Monica: "RE:Santa Monica single-use carryout bag ordinance: comments on and objections to Draft Environmental Impact Report". July 22,2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Region TX's Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) Table, 2004. Available online at: hft://www.epa.gov/region9/superfuiid/prg/files/04usersguide.pdf City of Huntington Beach 11 Res. No. 2015-1 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on April 20, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Posey, O'Connell, Katapodis, Sullivan, Delgleize, Peterson NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 0.4/a a W City CMrk and ex-officio Yerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 4 0 5 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REPEALING CHAPTER 5.95 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REUSABLE BAGS WHEREAS, on April 1, 2013, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted Ordinance No. 3975, adding Chapter 5.95 to the Municipal Code regulating the use of plastic carryout bags; and Following further environmental review, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 2 015-17 , the City Council desires to repeal Chapter 5.95, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.95 of Title 5 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 t h day of May , 2015. yor ATTEST: APPROVED ORM: ity Clerk City Attorney REVIEW " APPROVED: INITIA 6ANDPPROVED: i y anager hector of Planning and Building 15-4656/119722.doc Ord. No. 4053 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on April 20, 2015,and was again read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on May 04,2015, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Posey, O'Connell, Katapodis, Sullivan, Delgleize, Peterson NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Wave on May 14,2015. AFL. aj In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City C k and ex-officio Cl Ak Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 5.95 G .ap".6er-5.95 USE OF PI wcvsn rw wns AND REGYGn ABI E PAPER e ne n-n n..c:..:t:..ns "Certified „has the 1 "Customer" "Operator" e ,.1 ,1 but ' t 1:..�.;ted t„ the e f the ste fe z1--S�0i=2�-�v� �}}-Hi-�li�cri'��crc-'r".rnvc�arrrrc�rcv, cnvvwiicr�rcr�scvr� "Person" o > >pai4nefship, • cc » 0 bags, cc » cc » of cc » produet of othef f6ed iteffis te the point ef sale inside a stefe ef fe pr-eveflf stleh feed o items fs vai � ,ito difeet . ntaet. .;t ethe f p ,.hase. items. cc n 0 0 and feeofistittfted using available oineinefa4ing, eeavei4iiig, cc » fi'qttifeffief4s: 0feeyelable 0 feeyeled m.,to,.;.,1• 0 0 s Has pfinted e the bag the naffie of the ffl „F et,,,.o« the 1M^t;,,,, .,duo,- the b was „f ettffe l fid the po o , uu.it.,,.,, o f pest,.,nsti,v,o,-r fne.ele 4 a"ef;al tatoa. , " aa 15-4656/119876 1 6. Displays the wefd"feeyelab' " in a highlyvisible fflannef en the outside f the "Reusable bag"means a bagvvith haiidles that is speeifieall),desiped and mantifaettifed Fvi multiple o ,l,ltipl „ 0 F 1 meets „11 „fthe 1„ 0 .,tom i least 175 F et d si feete,1. 4. Dees not eefftainlead, ee�,w ef any othef hea-,-j,ffietal in t&Eie affietifits, as o b , 5. Has pfiflted on the bag, ef efi a tag that is pefmcffiefitly affixed te the bag,the th4 the bag does net.. ntai lead .,,1.�,;..fn aflyethef}.o.,,,.,.,,ot..l in to,d-e L11uL ulv vu�uv�..r , " , '� 6. if fflade e€pit' e f..t least 2.2 G mils thick "Store" means any ef the fellowing fetail establishments leeffted within the City 4 14untifig4en 1.AA_ci11 lifl nnn nn e 111V1 V, Ll[LLL tl,,t sells a l: o f df gfeeefy, eafined o efif;,e ,, items a , pefi h.,bl items; 2. A stefe ef at least 10,000 sqttafe feet ef fetail spaee that gefiefates sales ef use t ,.t t„the Bfadley B...«,s T T.,;F T .,1 Sales afid Use Tax haw,(Pa ft 1 G l.1lA1JUU11C-lt� Lll\. m.efleg with 1....m in „ l. S6etioo '77nn\ ,.f Diyisie ,,.,i 2 .,Fthe Revenue 4. Taxation �"',edr )and � v lvu f Tl. 2 „F tl. - crn=r`�z3ii�rc-or-cres�--rcrsiiie�sa„'7.1rG -a-�-ss=rc_"_. Goc'1e; vr 3 A d st, ph fk t st fOE) St, .�. 1 1 l u� wia., ', , ", ", feedFeed fnaf4 thef� +:+ , engaged in the..otail sale f,, i;.,,;ted line ef',�, eds t1 + lllul L, Vl VL11V1 1.,.10s f Hill. L...ead ed n ek feeds, eltidi g these steles with .. Type 70 0 ....,.Ll l.L V J 111111�, L/1 V Llu, n , � , B.Thispi Vlll V1L1V 1 Upr/114 the�e t�f sale and does-ivt-apply tv pcvaac bags ef pfedttet b crr. G.Ne t:.:.J.,.l Jllull u1JLlly cc-a plascie cariyv^ bag paper-bag-c^rc-the-r-tcrnicrr Mafkets, exeept pfeduee bags or-pfedttet begs. f3975 e€€eetiv 5113. , efa4i e 11" 15-4656/119876 2 All 4efes shall pfevide ef ffiake available to a eustemef enly feeyelable paper-eaffy,etit bags e of any type that they bfing te the stefe themselves of ffeffi e I . — I geeds tha4 afe net feqttifed iii „bseetio A f'this seetio , o o pt . ethefwise pfevided in this ..haptef-. 7 A et,..,l eests „f.feyiding ,..table p 4 bags;o „ E. > fflaintaifis false-, inaeetifate ef misleading feeefds, of ethefwise fails te eemply with this seetieff will be in vielatien ef this sec4ion and stieh store shall be s�bjeet te the fines set fefth in Seetie c o nan (3975 e feetiye cif 1. o,-.,4iye 1 1 i13) AA All st,fes must ide ab bags to ,st,,, efs oito«F r sale , at ehafg . p � h rev cTiva�v. G.Eaek nt. o is 4 « gl eneetifaged t pfevide t the Gib, rd to the „1 vri�++1' `.F a uciaia uui�'vi 15-4656/119876 3 t ; opefa4ive 11,113) 5te95.080 Enfor-ee 1?@R Fe'atmerrTi-�ivic�e' lation has eeetiffed and the polefitial penalties that will apply fer-ftitufe vie!&6R-- B.Any stefe theA violates ef fails te eeffiply with atiy of the fe"ifefnefi�s ef this ehapter- ui wl u' II771TLG"CI fi ffet;Dir ab,lo by the . ot•.ttef oft e str.«o. l n f;.,o.tet o edifig $l nn nn fe f the f;..st< el..tio .tftef the t ,.;ttot t iietiee is give ; Tl A fine sl.a 1.,, e f f� e da „l..t;.,t, E) .ttl„t,ro,l t.. .< .�,ti tto L.t 1 1111V Jll LL11-pV 111 pofs E.All fiiies eelleeted ptir-stia-nt to this ehapter-shall be used te assist o,A the iwvpleffien�atiaii uuu etifefeeffieflt of the feqtiifemefits issued, by filing a wfit4eii netiee ef appeal with the City Managef ne latef than 30 days afte 15-4656/119876 4 4 5 days ffE)fn the date that 4he notiee of appeal is filed, ef ea a latef date if agfeed UpOff b�, the appellant afid the City, a-ad will give the appellafi4 10 days pfief Vffit4en fletiee of thee c nr 090 c.......... : :if any a.. > sibseetieii, sentenee, elattse, validity of the ferainiiig peftietis-onne ehaptef. (3 975-effeet with zfedefal efst4e kw. (3975-effeetive c 113. , efE4i e 1143), 15-4656/119876 5 ATTACHMENT #3 Hj CITY OF HUNTINGTON B City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Mike Posey, City Council Member Date: January 13, 2015 Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOtE JANUARY 2q 2095, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In 2013, the City of Huntington Beach adopted a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance(the "Ordinance"). It was anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic carryout bags and creating a mandatory ten-cent charge for paper bags, the Ordinance would reduce the number of single- use bags consumed within the City. However, since the adoption of the Ordinance, we have not seen any evidence as to the effectiveness of the bag ban. The intention of the bag ban was to reduce litter and improve the environment. We have no verifiable proof that our local bag ban has done anything to reduce locally sourced and discarded single-use plastic bags, Littering of any kind is unacceptable but we already have laws in place to address littering. Regarding environmental concerns, it can be argued that limiting the choice to paper and/or reusable bags has more impact on increasing our carbon footprint. In fact, producing paper vs. plastic produces 400% more emissions (paper production, shipment, bag manufacturing, shipping, storage and disposal) than plastic. See http://sdience.howstuffworks.com/environmental/-qreen-scienc r)aper-plastic.htm for more info. The production of imported reusable bags also contributes(heavily)to carbon emissions through production and delivery. Reusable bags also consume more water for reuse and the proposed CA SB270 law will only allow retailers to sell "certified" bags. Such reusable bag certification includes a bag tag with origin and contact info, weight carrying j capacity, volume capacity, thickness requirement, material requirement, assembly requirement, and number of trips and distance traveled to calculate useful life cycle. It is highly likely that every reusable bag that each and everyone one of us is using are not certified. There has been no hard evidence and no other way to accurately measure if the Ordinance is doing what it is supposed to do in Huntington Beach. All the while, City consumers are required to pay for new, bigger plastic bags, or buy a single, maybe dual, use ten-cent paper bag, or carry each individual item out of the store. This law is nothing more than government over- regulation that has caused Huntington Beach residents/consumers to be charged more for shopping in Huntington Beach while also driving shoppers to neighboring cities. VAeolv Item 11. - 27 xB -300- CCMI—Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Page 2 January 13, 2015 1 believe in protecting the environment, and I treasure the beach, ocean, air and environment. I drive a dean diesel-powered car and telecommute a few days per week. I am not necessarily an environmentalist but am steadfastly environmentally conscious. I also value freedom. However, litter from plastic bags is caused by misuse and not use, and I object to punishing everyone because some people choose to litter. Existing state legislation, Senate Bill 270, would place a statewide ban on certain single use point-of-sale plastic bags. However, as of December 30, 2014, opponents of SB 270 collected over 800,000 signatures in support of a referendum, which, if the signatures are verified, will suspend the law and place it onto the November 2016 General Election Ballot. Thus, in November 2016, there may be a State law in effect that will make the Huntington Beach ordinance unnecessary. I humbly ask for your support in repealing the City ordinance in its entirety and let the voices of the voters of Huntington Beach be heard alongside the voices of the voters of the State of California in deciding if single-use plastic bags ought or ought-not be banned. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to take the necessary steps to repeal Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.95 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance." It is my understanding that repealing the ordinance may require additional environmental analysis, which could cost approximately$5,000 and take two to three months to complete. i cc: Fred A.Wilson, City Manager Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager f Joan Flynn, City Clerk Michael Gates, City Attorney i i HB -301- Item 11. - 28 Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:11 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request* 21073 Request#21073 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Share a Concern Citizen name: Veronica Allen Description: My husband and I were very upset to learn of the vote to repeal the ban on plastic bags. As long time HB residents we've seen the negative effects of the bags at the beach, our parks and our streets. We are happy to bring our reusable bags to stores and feel we should support this nationwide, not just city wide. If you just consider the number of tourists we host, isn't a cleaner city a worthwhile goal? Expected Close Date: January 30, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 7:03 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21051 Request#21051 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Complaint Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Anonymous Description: I am ready to repeal any plastic bag ban! There are way too many reusable bags that are littered. I have seen these bags in the trash can, despite being reusable. It's time to save 30,000 jobs in this country as well. Expected Close Date: January 31, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dombo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:43 AM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21127 Request#21127 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Anonymous Description: I support the repeal of the plastic bag ban. Ever since the ban was instituted I have shopped outside of my hometown, HB, in order to get the bags I desired. I want choice when I shop, not silly government mandates. Expected Close Date: February 9, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Harold Bees [hlbees@liberty.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Harold Bees 56255 Gold Nugget Rd Yucca Valley, CA 92284 January 23, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Harold Bees 1 Dornbo, Johanna From: Christine Brooks [Cabrooks19@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 5:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Christine Brooks 14 schley street Springfield, MA 01109 January 21, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Christine Brooks 1 Dombo, Johanna From: Stuart Coleman [scoleman34@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:37 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Stuart Coleman 2121 Algaroba St., #1107 Honolulu, HI 96826-2727 January 21, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10) . As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Stuart Coleman 1 Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:12 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21097 Request#21097 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Lorraine Crawford Description: Thank you Jill Hardy for your one dissenting vote regarding the need to have yet another study done on banning plastic bag use from Huntington Beach grocery stores. As for Councilman Posey and the rest of the council, how wasteful you are—your own time and taxpayers' dollars -- that you request yet another study to prove what 100 California cities and basic common sense have already proven—that reducing production and use of plastic litter(of all kinds!) is better for our oceans, our environment, and our water supply. No, this ban won't remove all plastic litter, but it's a giant step that is so easy to implement, if not for the plastic bag manufacturers lobbying. When consumer use their own reusable bags, we not only are keeping plastic trash off our beaches, we are using less paper bags, saving trees, further reducing cutting carbon emissions from transporting them. (Trader Joe's in HB says they are using 1000 less paper bags a day due to people bringing in their own bags). As all your recent studies for your master plan show, the beach and our pristine ocean are the top reasons residents love Huntington Beach. Stop wasting your time on your Tea Party politics and help keep our beaches and environment clean for our children. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lorraine June Crawford Expected Close Date: February 5, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Ann Marie Estrada [gig_girl79@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:47 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Ann Marie Estrada 216 Nashville Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 January 21, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). DEAR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, PLEASE DO NOT REPEAL THIS MEASURE. I OPPOSE THE ORDINANCE REPEAL. IT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM ON OUR BEACHES AND IN OUR CITIES TO HAVE ALL THESE UNNECCESSARY PLASTIC BAGS OUT THERE. THERE IS NO HARM IN ASKING RESIDENTS TO USE THEIR OWN CLOTH BAGS, OR AT THE VERY LEAST RE-USE THEIR OLD PLASTIC BAGS. WE RESIDENTS HAVE NOW GOTTEN USE TO USING OUR OWN CLOTH BAGS. IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR US TO DO THIS IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR CITY A BETTER PLACE! ! AND I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT: As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Ann Marie Estrada 1 Donnbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 5:21 AM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21110 Request#21110 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Share a Concern Citizen name: Michael Frantz Description: I am ECSTATIC to read the council voted 6-1 to go forward with repealing the bag ban that SHOULDN'T have happened in the first place! When election time came around, I voted for whoever was against the ban. My question now is why are we spending $5,000 for an environmental impact report?Just repeal the ban and be done with it and make a lot of people happy. Expected Close Date: February 4, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Print Request Page 1 of 2 Request: 21220 Entered on: 02/07/2015 2:40 PM Customer Information Name:Robert Frederickson Phone:(714) 856-9132 Address:8412 Norfolk Dr Alt. Phone:(714) 969-9575 Huntington Beach, CA Email:grnrmhb@yahoo.com 92646 Request Classification Topic:City Council - Share a Concern Request type:Comment Status:Open Priority:Normal Assigned to:Johanna Dombo Entered Via:Web City Council:8 -All Members of City Council Description I understand Huntington Beach's city council is looking at reversing the plastic bag ban. Let's start off with a little truth. It is only a "single use" bag if the PERSON decides to not use it for any of it's many possible uses. I'm 63 years old and see value in most things. But then again, our society finds it much easier to blame the THING instead of the PERSON. So can we agree to stop using the term "single use bag"? Besides, the ban makes no sense. Ban this bag, but not the ones in the vegetable section or the meat section. 1 don't like the so-called elites deciding what I can or can't do without a vote by the people. This issue just like most issues the council approves probably would not pass a vote by the residents. Plastic bags, high density housing, special parking permit areas ... the majority of residents would not vote for any of these. But just think, moving forward all those that choose can continue using their reusable bags and maybe change society the old fashion way ... by example. Reason Closed Date Expect Closed: 02/14/2015 Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfeity/printrequest.php?curid=2054181&type=0 2/9/2015 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 12:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#21244 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Terry and Mark Hoffman Description: Study after study imply that plastic bags are harmful to sea life. I believe we should keep plastic bags out of the stores, beaches, and ocean. Expected Close Date: February 11, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 12:13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#21245 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Mark Hoffman Description: I believe that plastic kills sea life. Please Keep it out of stores (plastic bags). Do not change existing ban on bags in the store. Thank you Expected Close Date: February 11, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: kishori holiday[kishoriholiday@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:23 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 kishori holiday 1721 alabama st #c huntingtin beach, CA 92648 January 26, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, kishori holiday 1 Dombo, Johanna From: Angela Huntemer[ahuntemer@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January21, 2015 10:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED- Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Angela Huntemer 57-068 Eleku Kuilima Place Kahuku, HI 96731 January 22, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). I used to live in Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, It is imperative that you support the plastic bag ban there. I live in Hawaii now and we are going through with it. The City of Huntington Beach should do everything possible to keep Huntington Beach and the surrounding ocean - clean. Mahalo. Thank you, Angela Huntemer 1 Dombo, Johanna From: Andy Kaknes [andykaknes@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:47 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED- Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Andy Kaknes 18 Dayton Street Lowell, MA 01852 January 27, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. I will be out visiting next week. I implore you to not repeal this. Recycled paper bags or re-usable bags are the solution we need less plastic in our oceans. Cities and towns across the country should be considering enacting the same rule. Sincerely, Andy Kaknes Docnbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:04 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21131 Request#21131 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Problem Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Judith Mackenzie Louria Description: I have been a resident of HB since 1966 an am impressed in general with the city and the choices made by the council and citizens. However, I am upset with the recent decision to repeal the plastic bag ban. It was an important and impressive decision. And selfish of those who prefer to go ahead with destroying our landscape and in general our earth. In the future I will only vote for those who support the ban. Expected Close Date: February 9, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i PLASTIC BAG BAN IN HUNTINGTON BEACH Why in the world did City Council Members vote to waste $5,000 of us taxpayers' money on an environmental impact report on the effect of ending the ban on plastic bags in Huntington Beach? The state ban was due to take effect in July, 2015 but is on hold until a referendum is held in November of 2016. Why is the City Council of Huntington Beach is such a rush? Does the city really have $5,000 to waste? Why not wait for the referendum and use the $5000 to fix some of the innumerable pot holes in our streets? How many boaters, beach goers and surfers want plastic bags in the water? How many residents like to see plastic bags being blown by the wind in our streets and lawns? What about the cost of disposing of non-biodegradable plastic bags that contribute to filling up our land-fills? Most of us have adjusted to the plastic bag ban by bringing our own reusable bags to the stores. In a civilized society some laws are necessary to compel all of us to do the right thing. Consider some other laws governing what we do, such as the helmet law for motorcyclists and the requirement to have automobile insurance. We as individuals do not have the right to do exactly as we please if our actions are likely to harm other people. Please rescind your vote to end the plastic bag ban. Very truly yours, Phyllis W. Maywhort Francis A. Maywhort 16851 Bay View Drive Sunset Beach, CA 90742 (562) 243-0787 Dombo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:43 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21164 Request#21164 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Question Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Larry McNeely Description: Ban the Bag Law, Stop legislating behavior, Encourage paper and reusable, Not Laws remove the law on plastic bags. Expected Close Date: February 12, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Marilee Movius [marilee_movius@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Do Not Repeal Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Dear Huntington Beach City Council, Please do not repeal the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.95 "Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. The ordinance is a step in the right direction to protect our local economy, the city staff time, oceans, beaches, and wildlife. According to a recent survey by the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, 73.68% of the respondents said that the ban has not adversely affected their business. 71.05% have said that they have not lost business due to the ban. Conducting a repeal on this ban will cost the city approximately $5,000. To conduct a repeal, it will take approximately two to three months to complete and a new environmental analysis. The city staff and the council do not have the time to waste on a decision that has already been made. Why go backwards to change a decision when time can be spent on issues that currently need attention? Our oceans and beaches are getting choked with plastic around the world. Huntington Beach is Surf City USA for a reason and we should be leaders in letting the public know that when visiting, it is NOT ok to bring plastic bags. Plastic bags are made to be single-use and do not leave our environment. They get caught along the fence lines and in the bushes of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands on PCH from Golden West to Warner. HB has one of the few wetlands left in California with birds that migrate there from all over, and many are near extinction. This is how we want to treat them? They don't get to have a voice about plastic bags. We do. Read for yourself the global issue: 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic tell us something new 5.225 trillion pieces of plastic tell us something new l'ollov; View cn 5yyre,.orq ty Ya,,loo Make the right decision and do not repeal the single-use carryout bag ordinance. Sincerely, Marilee Movius HB/SB Surfrider Foundation Member 1 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 21261 Entered on: 02/11/2015 5:37 PM Customer Information Name:the Pattersons Phone: Address: Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:pattersongvn@yahoo.com Request Classification Topic:Inquiry to a City Council Member Request type:Compliment Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Johanna Dombo Entered Via:Web City Council:8 -All Members of City Council Description Better late than never, but still wanted to get our thanks in there. Thank you all who voted to start the repeal of the plastic bag ban!! And thank you all for your hard work for our city. Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments has been entered into the Pipeline system and will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Sincerely, Johanna Dombo Executive Assistant Date Expect Closed: 02/22/2015 Date Closed: 02/12/2015 08:06 AM By: Johanna Dombo Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=2060082&type=0 2/12/2015 Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#21064 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Sandra Pope Description: Why repeal this ban? Expected Close Date: January 23, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:46 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21065 Request#21065 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Share a Concern Citizen name: Gary Schenk Description: Dear Members of the City Council, As a long time resident, registered voter and home owner in Huntington Beach, I was disheartened to read in today's Independent that the council has taken steps to repeal the plastic bag ban. I urge you all to reconsider this proposal. As residents of a coastal town it behooves us to do all we can to mitigate pollution of our ocean. Many plastic bags end up littering our beach and ocean. Cleaning up this mess costs California millions of dollars each year. Plastic bags are a terrible waste of resources, especially petroleum. Please reconsider this issue. Sincerely, Gary W. Schenk Expected Close Date: January 29, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dorrnbo, Johanna From: Ashley Schreader[ashleyschreader@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 7:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED- Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Ashley Schreader 19846 Bushard Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 January 21, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Ashley Schreader 1 Dombo, Johanna From: Scott Schreader[scottschreader@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 7:58 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Scott Schreader 19846 Bushard St Huntington Beach, CA 92646 January 21, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10) . As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean, otherwise you can take the surf out of the nickname. Hang Ten, Scott Schreader 1 March 4, 2015 Dear Mr. Sullivan, Recently, I sent the entire council a letter regarding the plastic bag ban, but I felt I had to write personally to you again in response to your letter in the Orange County Register. I have also sent a response to the Register. First of all, the council is supposed to be considering the repeal and is to revisit the issue in May. There is to be an environmental impact report done first. Is this the "red tape" you are referring to? And to say that the bags will be available soon? That is pretty presumptuous and makes me doubt that this is being done fairly. What about the impact reports that have already been done to enact the ban in the first place? Second, I felt your letter to the Register was insulting to the residents of Huntington Beach who feel differently than you do regarding the plastic bag ban. Many of our residents are highly educated, have already done the research on this issue, and have found the bacterial argument of reusable bags to hold little influence. Please read this article from NPR years ago that addressed this, quoting actual scientists: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/06/25/128105740/plastics- industry-funded-study-finds-bacteria-in-reusable-grocery-bags We've all adapted here in the city. You can still get bags to put your meat in so that there will be no contamination. We are grown people that can keep bags clean. I've been using them for 13 years, first at Whole Foods (formerly Wild Oats) and at Trader Joe's, where they were encouraged, and then at all places where I bought food. I was proud to see the ban enacted and the residents change their habits, albeit slowly and with some grumbling, but making those changes and adapting. With so many fewer bags being handed out, I feel like we were at least part of the solution instead of the problem. Now I feel like we are just going to go backwards. You state in your letter than you are a man of science. But what about the enormous amount of scientific evidence of what plastic is doing to our environment? On the very day your letter appeared in the Register, a cover story about turtles in the San Gabriel River specifically stated that "sea turtles sometimes mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and eat them, and dead turtles elsewhere have been found with plastic trash in their bellies." Countless other sea life has been affected by these bags, and as a man of science, you have to know the ramifications of this down the line. This garbage will have many serious consequences and will cause long-term damage to our oceans and to the humans that interact with them. We need to do all we can to reduce it. Trusting that people will reduce their use of plastic doesn't work. Only regulations do. We have already had to learn this the hard way, and as a coastal city, we have a huge responsibility because we truly are at ground zero here. I worry about the reputation Huntington Beach will have due to this repeal. The headlines stating that we will be the first city to repeal the plastic bag ban are embarrassing. How do I explain to my kids why plastic bags are going to be handed out en masse again in our city, after all the talks we've had about why we take our own bags to the store? Please take a few walks, Mr. Sullivan, in the wetlands and along our beaches, especially during the summer months, and see how plastic bags are so prevalent, and decide if you want to be a part of making this problem worse for our community and for the beaches and ocean that make this such a great place to live. Sincerely, Eileen Smith Huntington Beach I am writing in regard to the bag ban issue which unfortunately is coming back into the fray again. One of the reasons I did not vote for the newest council members is because they did not seem concerned about environmental issues such as this and that troubles me. While some may argue that we are becoming a "nanny state", others have seen what happens when regulations are too lax. Let's face it, without regulation our beaches would be a dump. Already the trash problem at the beach is awful. Do any of you visit the beach on a regular basis, or the wetlands? I run frequently on the bike path at Bolsa Chica State Beach and the city beach and one day a week through the wetlands. On one 3-mile run alone this past summer I collected a total of 9 plastic bags along the pathway through the wetlands, bags that had blown over PCH in the afternoon summer breeze. I could barely stuff them into my hands as I ran towards the trash bin to dispose of them. These bags are everywhere and are blown right into the water and into the wetlands reserve. Sure, many people are bringing them in from outside the city, but this is why I support a statewide ban. We need to get the total number of bags down. Our families deserve clean beaches to visit. The beach is why we choose to continue to live and pay taxes in this city. Other countries are considering banning bags for the same reasons: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/energy- environment/should-plastic-bags-b,=-- banned.html?pagewanted=all& r=0 Also, by repealing the ban, have any of you thought about what message we are sending to prospective tourists to our city? Many of these people are coming from areas where bans are already being considered or are taking place. This should be of concern to you and to the residents of Huntington Beach, as we benefit from tourism dollars. People who have the means to travel here and stay in our hotels are also likely to be concerned about the environment. If we put ourselves on the map as repealing an important ban like this, it will have a devastating effect on our image, especially since we are a coastal city whose impact on the environment is great. Do we want this? As a long-time resident of this city (19 years, my husband 49 years), I am deeply concerned about this issue and what it will mean for the health of our beach and wetlands, and thus our quality of life in this city. I am also concerned about the wildlife that will be affected off of our coasts. I urge you to reconsider this. I am hoping the voters will do the right thing in November 2016 so this will be a non-issue, but until then, we really need to keep this ban in place. Many of us have been carrying our own reusable bags for years (stores like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods have encouraged this for a very long time). It is a very easy thing to do. We cannot let laziness get in the way of our duty to preserve what we hold dear in this city, and we certainly can't kowtow to businesses that are complaining about the ban. We are an affluent community that businesses want to court. I am sure that there will not be a mass exodus if plastic bags are banned. I am saddened to see the council going the way it is, but I am taking note and watching how this goes for our next election. I am going to encourage those who care about the environment and our natural areas to also monitor this issue very carefully. Please don't be threatened by lazy residents who threaten to take their business elsewhere. They won't do this —they want the convenience of shopping in their city and will continue to do so. Everyone will adjust. I have, many residents have. We can do the right thing with little impact on our daily lives, yet it will have a much greater impact on our treasured beaches. Sincerely, Eileen Smith 15871 Oriole Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dombo, Johanna From: Christian Taylor[cgt4taylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:58 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED- Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Christian Taylor 16939 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 January 22, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Christian Taylor 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 9:14 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#21155 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Prudence Tedder Description: From: Prudence Tedder [mailto:prutaafreeggmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 8:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal - Agenda Item 10 Prudence Tedder 16865 South Pacific Ave. Sunset Beach, CA 90742 January 30, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our"Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Prudence Tedder Expected Close Date: February 3, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21027 Request#21027 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: monique theriault Description: Living by the beach brings many blessings - it also brings responsibilities. The people of Huntington Beach are the first guardians of the wonderful beach waters in our patch of the ocean. My friend, Carol and I get to be by the ocean every Sunday night for our peace vigil. Many's the time that we have had to chase plastic bags so they would not end up in the ocean. I also got to see something really sad in the water once as I was walking on the pier-there was a big, beautiful pelican floating dead in the water below- entangled in a plastic bag. One of the few things we can do to help is to use cloth bags when we go to the market. Let's make tonight's vote for our ocean, not for politics! Thank You for listening. Expected Close Date: January 30, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dombo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 2:57 PM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21079 Request#21079 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Tina Description: I am a resident of HB and would like to say I am in favor of repealing the bag ban. Here is why: - I do not like having to bring my own bags. They get dirty and are not sanitary. Who has time to now have to wash bags to get groceries & supplies? I do reuse the plastic bags we used to get for free; I do not throw them out or pollute the City. I also do not remember to bring bags to many places. Home Depot does not offer any bags anymore, for 10 cent or not. They do not have bags (paper or plastic) or boxes available, you simply have to carry all your items, no matter how many or how small or large; this is not good business! - they are still giving us plastic bags but now charge us for them. Some stores even charge for a paper bag. I'm sorry, but I REFUSE to pay for a bag; it's ludicrous. What is the use of a plastic bag ban when they are still using plastic bags??? - due to the above issues, I have now stopped shopping in HB as much as I can. I will go out of my way to go to a store in a different City that will not charge me for a bag and will actually have one on hand for me. This includes not only groceries, but other sundries as well. - I have neuropathy and carrying the plastic bags make my fingers go numb. I found some special handles that work well with the plastic bags we used to get for free at the stores. The handles I have do not work well with cloth bags. Due to the above issues, I feel very strongly about the bag ban. To me, it is utterly ridiculous that a bag can be banned. I am all for recycling and saving the earth. By all means, use a different bag but don't charge us for it. Here is a story that may make you think of another scenario regarding the ban. Last year I went to Toys-R-Us, not remembering it was in HB. I bought a bunch of small items and at the check out, they asked if I wanted a bag for 25 cents. I was flabbergasted at the 25 cent fee and said no, I would put the items in my cart and load them in my car. The cashier told me many people did this. She proceeded to tell me that when the employees go to collect the carts, they find a lot of items that people left in the cart by accident, due to the no bag issue. She actually laughed and thought this was funny. So, the stores are making out because they sell the merchandise to a customer, who accidently leaves it in the cart and now the store can sell it again for an even bigger profit to themselves. Really,this is what we want to happen in the City we live in???Please think hard about this issue and repeal the bag ban. Thank you for your time and please do not share my email information with anyone. Expected Close Date: February 3, 2015 Click here to access the request i Dornbo, Johanna From: jeffrey vaughan Ur@dsjprinting.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal-Agenda Item 10 jeffrey vaughan 1306 marine st santa monica, CA 90405 January 22, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Jeffrey vaughan Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 4:14 PM To: Pipeline Admin Agenda Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 21024 Request#21024 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: geri von freymann Description: City council members, We are long time residents of Huntington Beach. We do not support repealing the plastic bag ban. Please do not take this step backward. Not only is plastic bag waste a big issue in our wetlands and on our beaches, but it blows through our parks, neighborhoods and into our yards. Let's keep the quality of life for all of us a priority. Thank you for your time The Von Freymanns. Expected Close Date: January 21, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 Dornbo, Johanna From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 8:40 AM To: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 21068 Request#21068 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Compliment Request area: Inquiry to a City Council Member Citizen name: Edward Weisberg Description: Dear Council members, We at GXT Green are pleased to see action that may be taken to rescind the bag ban in Huntington Beach. There are alternatives to bans that address the issue of plastic pollution, without costing taxpayers and businesses money, nor causing inconvenience and potential sanitary issues. ECOgrade degradable bags are an example of an alternative to plastic bags that solve these issues. ECOgrade bags are made from Calcium Olefinic Glucosate (COG), a new patented technology. If littered or lost they photodegrade to a non-toxic residue within 240 days, and then further biodegrade eliminating microplastics. They also can be recycled with plastic bags. They are being adopted around the world in cities who have banned bags, or are looking for a better alternative. Please take a look at our info at www.ECOgradebag.com, or www.GXTGreen.com. I would welcome the opportunity to tell you more, and be glad to present all details and answer questions. From our perspective, they are an al ternative that eliminates the need for carry-out bag bans. Thank you. Ed Weisberg Expected Close Date: February 2, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Dornbo, Johanna From: Betty Wells [bwells61958@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:59 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSED - Plastic Bag Ordinance Repeal -Agenda Item 10 Betty Wells 21401 Augusta Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 January 22, 2015 Dear Councilmember, I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE the single-use carryout bag ordinance repeal (Agenda Item 10). As a visitor to Huntington Beach's beautiful coastal areas, I know the value of clean beaches. It is not only good for families that visit the beach but also for local tourism. The City of Huntington Beach should take every measure to keep our "Surf City" beautiful and clean. Sincerely, Betty Wells 1 Esparza, Patty From: Estanislau, Robin Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:13 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: HBEB Response to EIR Addendum (Repeal of Bag Ordinance)_2015-04-17MSv3.doc Attachments: HBEB Response to EIR Addendum (Repeal of Bag Ordinance)_2015-04-17MSv3.doc; ATT00001.txt Don't know if the last email had the attachment :) -----Original Message----- From: Beckman, Hayden Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:54 AM To: Estanislau, Robin Subject: FW: HBEB Response to EIR Addendum (Repeal of Bag Ordinance)_2015-04-17MSv3.doc Robin, Please forgive me if you're not the correct recipient of a late communication for tonight's Council meeting. The Environmental Board has drafted a comment letter on the draft Addendum that the Council will bring forward for action tonight as Item 11 on the agenda. It is attached to this email. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Hayden Beckman Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach -----Original Message----- From: Kim Nicolson [mailto:kimcnicolsonOgmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 10:43 PM To: Beckman, Hayden Subject: HBEB Response to EIR Addendum (Repeal of Bag Ordinance)_2015-04-17MSv3.doc Hi Hayden, Please see the attached comment letter regarding the EIR Addendum repealing the bag ban on behalf of the Environmental Board. If you would please include this in your presentation to council tomorrow night, we would greatly appreciate it. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! SUPPLEMENTAL AL Kim Nicolson COMMUNICATION Meeting Dater 1 D ZD Agenda Item No. 1 April 4-720, 2015 Mr. Hayden Beckman City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR, SCH 42011111053 Dear Mr. Beckman: At the April 2, 2015 Huntington Beach Environmental Board (HBEB) meeting, a committee of three HBEB members(Mark Sheldon,Jeff Coffman, and Tony Soriano)was appointed to review and prepare a response to the subject Draft Addendum to'the Final EIR, with said response submitted for approval by HBEB Chair Kim Nicolson and subsequent forward to the Huntington Beach City Council. The Draft Addendum is titled "Huntington Beach Repeal of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance/ Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report."The introduction of the Draft Addendum clarifies that "this document is an addendum to the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) that was adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council in March 2013 (SCH #2011111053)" (Final EIR). Using the procedure described above,the representatives of the HBEB offer the following comments for your consideration: General: Al. We appreciate that the City has prepared a document which implicitly acknowledges the requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to provide a document addressing the impact of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance. A2. We are also pleased that the Draft Addendum has acknowledged the need to consider four principal Environmental Impacts affected by the repeal of the Bag Ordinance, as identified in Section 4 of the Final EIR: "Air Quality," "Biological Resources," Greenhouse Gas Emissions," and "Hydrology and Water Quality." A3.The Draft Addendum does not directly address all Environmental Impact issues as identified in the Final EIR. Notably absent is a specific discussion of CEQA-required topics in Final EIR Section 5 "Other CEQA Discussions:" "Growth Inducing Impacts," and "Irreversible Environmental Effects." A4.The Draft Addendum fails to identify the Report Preparers by name, as was done in Section 7.2 of the Final EIR. Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comments Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR,SCH#2011111053 April 17, 2015 Page 2 Old Data/Estimates: B1. We note that much of the numbers presented in the Draft Amendment are based on old data and estimates which were employed in the Final EIR which is now over two years old. Furthermore,the values in the Final 2013 were taken from multiple sources which many not have been fully consistent in the methods and assumptions employed.While these that data may have been the best available at the time, more accurate and self-consistent data may now be available.The many other jurisdictions which have enacted similar bag ordinances since the Final EIR was approved provide reasonable cause to review available data sources. B2. "Conservative Estimates" are cited in Table 1 for the number of paper bags needed to replace single use plastic bags(assumed 1:1 though paper bags generally provide 50%more storage volume).This assumption arguably results in an overestimate of paper bag use and associated environmental impacts. B3. "Conservative Estimates" are cited in Table 1 for the number of reuses of reusable bags (assuming 52 uses, much lower than the 125 uses provided in the specifications for such bags).This assumption arguably results in an overestimate of reusable bag consumption and associated environmental impacts. B4.An obsolete Web Link has been provided for the cited report "Environment Agency—United Kingdom government. "Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags". February 2011."This report is the principal source for assertions throughout the Draft Addendum concerning environmental impacts of reusable bags. Project Description: C1.The City's objectives for the original Bag Ordinance are itemized, and include the reduction of adverse Environmental Impacts; for example, "impacts to biological resources(including marine environments) and water quality," and "Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve)."The section concludes by stating"With repeal of the Bag Ordinance, these objectives of the Bag Ordinance would also be removed." This set of statements acknowledges that the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance is expected to result in adverse environmental impacts relative to the current situation with the Bag Ordinance in effect. C2. Other stated obiectives of the original Bag Ordinance include "Reducing the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by retailers and used by customers in Huntington Beach," "Deterring the use of paper bags by customers in Huntington Beach," and "Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in Huntington Beach."These objectives of the Bag Ordinance would also be removed.The Draft Addendum acknowledges this but does not address the associated impacts on consumer behavior, including the original Bag Ordinance's encouragement of environmentally responsible personal practices in bag selection, use, and disposal, as well as the effect of the removal of that encouragement on behavior, and its ultimate impact on consumer waste disposal. Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comments Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR, SCH#2011111053 April 17, 2015 Page 3 C3. It should also be noted that because Huntington Beach is a popular tourist destination,that the consumer behavior implications of the Bag Ordinance and it's proposed repeal extend not only to Huntington Beach residents, but also significantly to visitors. Repeal of the existing Bag Ordinance represents an opportunity cost for Huntington Beach to demonstrate environmentally responsible practices and encourage them beyond its borders. Furthermore, many travel consumers make trip decisions influenced by the environmental preservation of the locations that they consider visiting, so that City environmental policy may impact the quantity and type of tourists that are attracted.The environmental impact of this broader influence and reputation (or its removal) has not been addressed in the Draft Addendum. Environmental Impacts: D1.The Draft Addendum acknowledges that under it's assumptions,the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance would increase Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification emissions: "approximately 875 kg per year for ozone and 9,808 kg per year for atmospheric acidification compared to existing conditions with the Bag Ordinance."This represents an adverse environmental impact and needs to be plainly acknowledged as such. D2. Recitation of the Air Pollution Control District regulations governing manufacturing is not a relevant argument of mitigation of Air Quality Impacts since the same or similar regulations existed in the Air Pollution Control District prior to and during the implementation of the Bag Ordinance. At the same time, while this statement is generally true of most jurisdictions in the United States,the location of manufacture of the bags has not been described in the Draft Addendum and so this general assertion is unsupported. By either consideration,the mitigation of adverse air quality impacts of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance has not been demonstrated. D3.The Draft Addendum acknowledges that the Final EIR determined that the Bag Ordinance would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags within Huntington Beach, which could increase the amount of plastic carryout bags which could "incrementally increase the amount of litter entering coastal and marine habitats,this increasing litter-related impact to sensitive species, plant communities, and coastal wetlands areas."The potential increase of the supply of paper and reusable bags under the Bag ordinance, potentially increasing those items in the litter stream, is mentioned in the Draft Addendum. However the Draft Addendum does not specifically mention the higher environmental mobility and greater ingfestion threat to wildlife which has been observed with thin-gauge "single use" plastic bags. Therefore the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance, which is estimated to increase the number of such single- use plastic bags in Huntington Beach relative to the current status with the Bag Ordinance in place, should be evaluated as a more significant wildlife threat. D4. Citing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other regulatory requirements for wastewater discharge is not a relevant argument of mitigation of the impact of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance, since the same or similar regulations existed prior to and during the implementation of the Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comments Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR, SCH#2011111053 April 17, 2015 Page 4 Bag Ordinance. Furthermore, the presence of these regulations does not adequately address the fundamental problem of litter,which includes materials which fall into the biosphere, much of which evade existing control and collection mechanisms. D5.The discussion of Best Management Practices(BMPs)for stormwater and other runoff issues does not clearly acknowledge that Huntington Beach has not fully implemented BMPs for litter capture consistent with what other local coastal cities have employed. [The HBEB recommends examination of the Storm Drain practices of Dana Point as an effective system for reference.]The Draft Addendum implicitly acknowledges the incomplete nature of City runoff control when it states"These BMPs and control techniques would reduce litter related storm drain and water quality impacts thus would also reduce litter impacts on biological resources." (emphasis added). An unimplemented plan does not provide mitigation.The City needs to implement BMPs if this point in the Draft Addendum is to be relevant for environmental impact. s5D6. Litter also cannot be entirely mitigated by"responsible consumer behavior" if the post-collection system is faulty. Single use plastic bags have been observed to fly out of uncovered waste collection receptacles at City beaches, drawn by wind entrainment or birds.The City should provide waste receptacles which are adequately protected from such losses(in particular, with properly functioning self-closing lids) at all beaches and other City-maintained property.The City should also consider ways to encourage of property owners with outdoor receptacles to do the same. 96D7.The discussion of Greenhouse Gas impacts due to the Bag Ordinance (which in any event are considered to be Class III,less than significant), includes speculation concerning greenhouse gas impacts of the agricultural processing of organic materials used in many reuseable bags. If the scope of evaluation is to be extended to raw materials sourcing, then a more thorough and consistent examination of all processes for all of the bag raw materials under consideration (including single-use plastics and paper, as well as reusable bag materials) is warranted. i7D8.The same considerations indicated relative to biological resources cited as items D3--D4;-and 041hrough-D6 above also apply to the FepeFts-Draft Addendum arguments about Water Quality from Litter. D8. Citing State and EPA Regulations on manufacturing activities is not a relevant argument of mitigation of the impact of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance on Water Quality Associated with Manufacturing Bags, since the same or similar regulations existed prior to and during the implementation of the Bag Ordinance. D9.The existence of regulations (AB 258)for avoiding and mitigating spills of preproduction plastics does not address the degree to which such spills have actually occurred.As for many other assertions in the Draft Addendum, quantitative analysis has not been included. Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comments Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR,SCH#2011111053 April 17, 2015 Page 5 Additional Observations: XIE1. Many of the issues identified above aFe seriously compromise the Draft Addendum as a meaningful and quantitative response to the impact of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance. X2E2.The Repeal of the Bag Ordinance is not a simple exercise of a different option under the original EIR.Time and resources have been expended by the City of Huntington Beach and other parties including its citizens and businesses to implement the original bag ordinance, and additional time and resources will be expended by all parties to implement a Repeal of the Bag Ordinance. X-3E3.The City of Huntington Beach has not stayed static during the approximate year and a half that the Bag Ordinance has been in place.The citizen and business population has changed in that time.The City has access to data concerning such changes which might be considered preliminary, but which is more up to date than the now several-years old estimates used in the Final EIR and now in the Draft EIR. X4E4.The City has failed on many counts to collect and meaningfully update information available to them, including data specifically identified to be collected by the City under the Bag Ordinance,which would enable a more accurate assessment of the impacts of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance. For example, all stores which now sell paper bags for$0.10 each are required to keep records of those sales, and the city is instructed to collect that data under the ordinance.The stores are believed to be keeping that data since paper bags are now part of their sales, but there is no indication that the City has been collecting this data. X4E5.The difference in the wording of the Titles of the Final EIR and the Draft Addendum (in particular, the addition of the words"Repeal of," reflects the fact that the original Bag Ordinance and the proposed Repeal of the Bag Ordinance are two separate actions with separate and distinct impacts.As such the Environmental Impacts of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance are not properly addressed by an Addendum to the Final EIR of the original Bag Ordinance.A true addendum would not change the title of the subject document, and this simple semantic consideration underlies a fundamental difference. XSE6.The proposal to address the environmental impacts of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance by a Draft Addendum which does not provide for a Public Comment period does not adequately regard the concern by many Huntington Beach citizens for the impacts of the proposed Repeal of the Bag Ordinance, expressed in public comments at prior City Council meetings.Those comments suggest that citizens have concerns which would be properly documented and addressed by the City in a formal Public Comment period as was employed for the original Bag Ordinance. )(6E7. Not only has a formal Public Comment period not been employed, but the availability of the Draft Addendum for public review has been minimal. At the April 2, 2015 HBEB meeting the City Staff Liaison represented that the Draft Addendum would be available for review by April 8,2015. The document was not distributed to HBEB's review Committee until April 14, and was not posted on the public website until April 15. Consideration of the Draft Addendum and possible final action on the Repeal of Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comments Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR,SCH#2011111053 April 17, 2015 Page 6 the Bag Ordinance has been placed on the City Council Agenda, providing less than a week for anyone on the HBEB membership, or the general public,to review it and prepare comments. DEB. Furthermore, many Huntington Beach citizens have made public comments to City Council asking for the repeal to be put to the voters of the City as-i4 a Referendum added to a future election ballot. While an opinion has also been expressed in public comments that the original Bag Ordinance should have been put to a similar Referendum vote,the absence of such a vote in the past does not preclude it's employment in the future if the City Council believes that such a vote is the best way to evaluate the opinion of the Huntington Beach electorate. E9.The California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum which has been approved for the November 8, 2016 ballot, presents a situation in which deferred action on the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance in Huntington Beach would be beneficial. First,the votes on that Initiative within the City of Huntington Beach would be available and would inform the City Council of local voter sentiment without the additional expense of a local Ballot Initiative. Further, if the Statewide Bag Ban is upheld the existing Huntington Beach Bag Ordinance would be "grandfathered" and avoid the costs and frustration of"off again/on again" regulation to businesses and consumers, as well as the adverse impact on civic reputation of action contrary to the wishes of the broader electorate. Summary of Recommendations The Huntington Beach Environmental Board, in keeping with its duty to"advise the City Council and staff on sustainability challenges and opportunities to enhance the overall sustainability, economic, ecological and social environments of Huntington Beach," wishes to make the following recommendations to the City in the light of the preceding points. F1. Defer action on Repeal of the Bag Ordinance until the outcome of the California Plastic Bap Ban Referendum on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot has been determined and the results have been analyzed. F2. If the City wishes to proceed with consideration of the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance it should employ a level of Environmental Impact Report with a formal opportunity for Public Comment, and which treats the Repeal of the Bag Ordinance as an independent action from the prevailing situation not as an Addendum to the Final EIR of the Bag Ordinance which ignores the impact of over a year and a half of implementation of that Ordinance. F3.Any level of Environmental Impact Reporting should employ a more comprehensive and quantitative environmental impact analysis.The City is encouraged to employ the considerations discussed above before approving any EIR document concerning the Bag Ordinance. EIR documents should employ current data rather than prior projections wherever possible. Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comments Administrative Draft Addendum to the Final EIR, SCH#2011111053 April 17, 2015 Page 7 F4. Regardless of the Citv's action on the Bag Ordinance, it is encouraged to collect data measuring consumer and business behavior as provided for in the Bag Ordinance, and to analyze that data to monitor its effectiveness. F4. If full citizen feedback is desired independent of other avenues of citizen expression,then the City should consider a local ballot Referendum on the subject. F5. Regardless of the City's action on the Bag Ordinance, it is encouraged to fully implement environmental protection actions which mitigate litter and other impacts of plastic bags, including more effective public trash receptacles and implementation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Runoff. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, Kim Nicolson Chairperson, Huntington Beach Environmental Board Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 1:33 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Council Agenda(04/20/2015) From: Gino J. Bruno [mailto:gbruno0)socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 1:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Council Agenda (04/20/2015) 1 urge the City Council members to support the following items on tonight's Agenda: • Item 11 dealing with the repeal of the often-called Reusable Bag Ordinance; • em , sponsored by Council Member Peterson,establishing the Citizen's Infrastructure Advisory Board (CIAB); and • Item 14, sponsored by Council Member Peterson and Mayor pro tem Katapodis, re-establishing the Finance Commission. Favorable outcomes in these three areas would serve the citizens of our city very well. Thank you. Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Late: 4 �6 J Agenda Item No. 1 4/20/2015 Re ea l of . Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter5.95: (Reusable Bag ordinance) k Huntington Beach City Council Meeting April 20, 2015 j History March 18, 2013: City Council approved the Reusable Bag Ordinance and certified EIR No. 2011-002 Prohibits distribution of plastic carry-out bags Mandates a 10-cent charge on issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags Stores must provide reusable bags to customers > November 1, 2013: Ordinance became operative > January 20, 2015: City Council voted 6-1 to direct staff to prepare ordinance to repeal the Reusable Bag Ordinance and conduct the necessary environmental review pursuant to CEQA > April 20, 2015: City Council considers repealing HBMC Section 5.95 (Reusable Bag Ordinance) 1 4/20/2015 x,+2,# SIR. N 2®1`1-®02 # ' Analyxzed .potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Reusable Bag Ordinance Analyzed impacts to: 1" Air Quality Biological Resources , Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality Y 9Y Q Y _ Analyzed ""No Project" alternative Assumed Ordinance would not be adopted t # � Re ail stores would continue to provide single plastic and paper bags free of charge to customers' Adcl'en t�r� o SIR No. 2011'®0®02�� Inc)udes a ,comparison of the impacts, of yqzr � . the proposed repeal to those identified in 1 the approved Reusable Bag Ordinance Concludes that impacts associated with u' the repeal of the Reusable Bag Ordinance would be similar to impacts identified in } 1.: the Final EIR ¢ 'Impacts not considered significant Proposed repeal does not require substantial; .b t changes to the No Project Alternative a° t r 2 4/20/2015 Recommendation_ (based, upon- City Council Direction): Certify Addendum to EIR No. 11-002; -y and Approve for introduction ordinance No. 4053 repealing HBMC Chapter 1 5.95 (Reusable Bag ordinance) i � I 3 Esparza, Patty From: Agenda Comment Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:27 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; Dombo, Johanna; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items AGENDA COMMENT Subject Bag Ban Repeal Name Renee Caligiuri Email rainyyCdhotmail.com Comments Repeal it! &concentrate on making public more aware of recycling. You should see some of the reusable bags I see people bringing in to stores, they're dirty-disgusting. They obviously haven't been washed. So much worse than the dreaded plastic bag, which are multi-use& most people recycle anyway. The council has my vote to repeal. 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Agenda Comment Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:27 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; Dombo, Johanna; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items AGENDA COMMENT Subject Bag Ban Repeal Name Renee Caligiuri Email rainyy(oo�hotmail.com Comments Repeal it! &concentrate on making public more aware of recycling. You should see some of the reusable bags I see people bringing in to stores, they're dirty-disgusting. They obviously haven't been washed. So much worse than the dreaded plastic bag, which are multi-use & most people recycle anyway. The council has my vote to repeal. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda !tern No. i Fikes, Cathy From: Joel [moleworkshb@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:37 PM To: Posey, Mike Cc: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Repeal of Single-use Plastic Bags Ban. Councilmen Posey, My name is Joel Griffin. My wife, Teresa, and I have lived at 20662 Elizabeth lane in Huntington Beach for close to thirty years. I am writing you to express my disappointment in your and most of the council's efforts to repeal the City's single-use plastic bag ban. I feel this is very short sighted and ignores the negative affects single use plastic bags have on our environment and wildlife. I regularly enjoy our beaches and parks, and I have noticed since the ban took effect the decrease in plastic bags in the water and littered around our community. In my opinion, there is no logical reason for not using reusable bags, except laziness and the narcissistic view that it is my choice; there is an economic element from the manufactures of plastic bags but I am assuming that narrow view is not part of deciding what is best for the city of Huntington Beach. Our society has outlawed hundreds of chemicals and processes that were found detrimental to the health of environment. I see the ban on plastic bags as a continuation of that protection. Our city, and country, need leadership not individuals who ignore problems and facts. I am hopeful that you will change your opinion on this important matter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this issue. Sincerely, Joel Griffin Phone # 714-745-2675 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mpeting gate: _6_Lq_ d0 S" Agenda Item No. Fikes, Cathy From: Stacey[staceyca@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bag Ban Dear Huntington Beach City Council, I own a condo in Huntington Beach and I spend a lot of time in Orange County.I am disappointed that you are pushing to overturn the plastic bag ban. As an adult surfer, I've seen a lot of plastic bags floating in the ocean and on the beach. Also as a person that has picked up trash on the beach and in the Bolsa Chica wetlands,overturning this ban will just add to the trash problem in the city. Huntington Beach is Surf City(a clean ocean, beach and the Bolsa Chica wetlands are all very important to the HB residents). Please vote No on over turning the plastic bag ban. I would like to thank Jill Hardy for her voting decisions to date. Thank you Jill! Sincerely, Stacey McDonald 714-248-1248 r� SUPPLEMENTAL O UNICIR I meeting Gate: Jr '� o� /s— Agenda item No..,,,�` -- 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Shannon Pollacchi [hspollacchi@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:30 PM To: Hardy, Jill; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Plastic Bag Ban Ms. Hardy, I currently own a home in HB and love it here. My job is working for a solid waste provider, ( WM) and understand how bag plastic bags are for the environment. As a professional in the field and a homeowner in HB, I urge you NOT to repeal the plastic bag ban. Please, Please, Please , let them continue to be excluded from our enviornment. Unless you are in the waste industry, you do not understand the complete ramifications and the determent that plastic does to our environment. Plastic bags are very difficult to recycle, due to the sheer volume required. We encourge "Source Reduction" as the best way to keep these out of our environment. Thank you, Shannon Pollacchi 17522 Woodfem Lane in HB SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: `f' Agenda Item No.� i Fikes, Cathy From: Lori [lorikirk523@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:35 PM To: Posey, Mike Cc: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Plastic grocery bags Hi Mike, I live in Huntington Beach and I really love our city. I'm concerned about the proposed repeal of the plastic grocery bag law. I think the spirit of the law is to help reduce the amount of plastic garbage we generate. You're right, it's not illegal, but it is a problem we have to address. Most people have joined in to help by bringing their own reusable bags, let's just keep it that way! Every year on July 5th, as I drive down PCH going to work at Hoag Hospital, I'm shocked at the trash strewn roadsides. It's a sight to see and I'd estimate 70% is plastic grocery sacks. Please reconsider your point of view and choose to keep Huntington Beach clean. Thank You, Lori SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No. i 4 ate. ! 0 R A N G E. C 0 U N T YCOASTKEEPER `R 6 z � O SURFRIDER Si RA FOUNDATION Californians CLUB ®nst Waste May 4, 2015 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Opposition to Bag Ban Repeal Ordinance and Inadequate CEQA Review Dear Mayor Jill Hardy and City Councilmembers: On behalf of Surfrider Foundation Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter, Orange County Coastkeeper, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter/Orange County Group, and Californians Against Waste, we submit this letter to object to the City's proposed Bag Ban Repeal Ordinance ("Project" or"Repeal Ordinance") and the entirely inadequate environmental review of this project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). We write to express our deep concern over an attempt by the City to circumvent the substantive and procedural requirements of state environmental law by relying on a non-circulating Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the original bag ban. Using the EIR prepared for a project described to accomplish precisely the opposite effect as the current bag ban repeal deprives the public of an opportunity to comment and test the environmental impacts of the City's drastic change of course and is a fundamental perversion of CEQA. Relying upon the Addendum to approve the Repeal Ordinance is improper and does not withstand even minimal legal scrutiny. It is beyond dispute that the EIR relied upon the beneficial impacts of eliminating single- use plastic bags as support for nearly all of its conclusions.' Such beneficial impacts 1 The City certified the EIR for the bag ban ordinance in 2013. The EIR assessed the impact of the bag ban in four areas of environmental concern: air quality, biological resources,greenhouse gas emissions,and hydrology/water quality. It concluded that the ban would have beneficial impacts on air pollution from bag The EIR analyzed three alternatives.Alternative 1,the"No Project Alternative," assumed no implementation of the 2013 bag ban. Under Alternative 1,none of the negligible impacts from the bag ban would be felt, but the City would fail to achieve the three beneficial impacts identified above.The second and third alternatives assumed even stricter bans than the 2013 Ordinance would require: Alternative 2 extended the ban on single-use plastic bags to all retail establishments in Huntington Beach.Under this scenario,while the minor negative impacts on air pollution from bag delivery and water quality from bag production would remain the same as under the 2013 Ordinance,the negative impacts on greenhouse gases would be reduced,and the beneficial impacts on air pollution from bag production and litter would be amplified.Alternative 3 examined increasing the mandatory charge for paper bags distributed in stores from plastic bag bans have been recognized in CEQA cases concerning the implementation of bag bans. Indeed, in the two most recent Court of Appeal cases to analyze the relationship between CEQA and bans on the use of plastic bags, the courts permitted the use of categorical exemptions for the imposition of such bans, because banning plastic bags is an action taken to maintain, restore, or enhance the environment. (See Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County ofMarin (2013) 218 Cal.App.4t" 209 and Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco (2013) 222 Cal.App.4`h 863.) There is no legitimate dispute before the City that the adoption of the environmental legislation to enact the bag ban was an action that was beneficial to the environment. The City cannot legally piggyback on an analysis of an environmentally beneficial action and claim that the public has already had an opportunity to weigh in on the question of eliminating those beneficial impacts. As set forth below, the public has been deprived of that opportunity, and the documents before the City do not do a full and accurate job of demonstrating what those impacts are likely to be, analyzing project alternatives, or imposing mitigation to lessen or avoid the impacts. I. The Lack of Environmental Review Contravenes CEQA and Constitutes an Improper Use of an EIR Addendum. CEQA was enacted in order to "[d]evelop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state." (Pub. Res. Code § 20001(a)). The City's action to quickly usher through this Repeal Ordinance relies on an improper interpretation of CEQA requirements and improper use of an Addendum. An Addendum is appropriate in the CEQA context if only minor or technical changes to the project are necessary, and the new information does not involve new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the original EIR. For instance, if new information becomes available about a project site, an Addendum might be used to analyze the effects of the new information. If project is modified in a minor way, such as to change the mix of land uses from residential to office, an Addendum might suffice for the analysis. Here, however, the City improperly relied upon an Addendum to an EIR to do a very different project—in fact, it was the exact opposite of the original project that was analyzed by the EIR. This is an unprecedented circumvention of public process for a very controversial local project and thwarts the City Council's mandate to protect the health and welfare of the public. The sly use of the Addendum is an attempt to evade the opportunity for meaningful public comment, and denies the public responses to environmental review concerns prior to taking action on the Addendum or the Repeal Ordinance. In addition to the fact that the use of the Addendum under these circumstances is itself unlawful, it also has led to a stunted environmental review that (1) fails to inform decision makers and the public from $0.10 to$0.25 per bag. As with Alternative 2,the negative impacts on air pollution from bag delivery and water quality from bag production would remain the same under Alternative 3,as compared with the 2013 Ordinance,while the negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced and the beneficial impacts on air pollution from bag production and litter would be increased. The EIR concluded that Alternative 3 was the environmentally superior alternative.However,it also found that,because the 2013 Ordinance would not have any significant negative environmental impacts,adopting Alternative 3"would not avoid any significant environmental effects." 2 about the project's impacts; (2) fails to assess impacts using a stable, accurate description of the project; (3) fails to assess impacts based on an accurate "baseline" or environmental setting; (4) does not ensure that impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible; (5) fails to consider and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project; and (5) has not allowed for a meaningful opportunity for public comment. First, the Addendum on its face contains so many revisions to the EIR that these changes cannot be considered"minor or technical" changes to the document. Indeed, the Addendum significantly revises most of the fundamental portions of the EIR. It re-writes the Project Description to set out an entirely different—and complete opposite project: rather than limiting single-use bags, the project is now to reintroduce their use. The Addendum deletes the project objectives entirely (apparently not replacing them with anything else, controverting a core requirement of an EIR). One core purpose of an EIR's project objectives is it to assist in the development and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The prior project objectives were "reducing the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by retailers and used by customers in Huntington Beach ... deterring the use of paper bags ... promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags . . . Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments) and water quality . . . avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment." (Addendum at p.3) Deletion of all of these objectives is a significant change in course that fundamentally alters the analytical framework of the EIR. Moreover, the reversal of the bag ban affects each impact analyzed in the EIR. The EIR analyzes impacts in four areas: air quality, greenhouse gases, water quality, and biological resources. The Addendum revises the analysis significantly in all four areas. That fact alone significantly distinguishes this use of an Addendum from those proper uses upheld in published decisions, where only a small subset of impacts needed to be revised due to changes in the project. The fact that every single impact considered in the original EIR needs to be re-addressed conclusively demonstrates that more than an Addendum is needed because "substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects." (Pub. Res. Code § 21166 (describing when a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR shall be required); CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1)). Moreover, the Addendum ignores other necessary changes to the EIR. For example, the EIR includes a required description of the environmental setting for the original bag ban. The environmental setting constitutes the baseline against which impacts are to be measure. The Addendum fails to set out the new environmental baseline post-bag ban, in which 95 percent fewer plastic bags are used than before. Ignoring this fundamental difference invalidates the entire analysis (as set forth in further detail below). The Addendum was required to modify this section of the EIR and fails to do so. The Addendum fails to consider whether repeal of the bag ban will have irreversible 3 environmental effects, as required by CEQA analysis. Finally, the Addendum fails to consider alternatives to the bag ban repeal. The City must consider alternatives to the project, which apply in today's world (with the bag ban in effect) and were not addressed in this Addendum. Courts have opined that it is appropriate to use an Addendum where changes are made to previously analyzed project, because the time to comment on and object to the previous EIR had long-expired. (See e.g. Moss v. County of Humboldt(2008) 162 Cal.AppAth 1041, 1049-1050, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 428). The use of an Addendum under these circumstances flips that rationale on its head. The original EIR for the bag ban was relatively uncontroversial. It concluded that most of the impacts of a bag ban were beneficial. The Draft EIR to the original project only received 3 comment letters, from (1)the Huntington Beach Environmental Review Board (2)Native American Heritage Commission and (3) Orange County Coastkeeper. There was a lack of public comments on the full EIR because so many people supported a ban on bags. At the time of the original EIR, the public did not deem it necessary to comment in support of the action that was proposed there. The public certainly did not deem it necessary to comment upon the exact opposite project. The City is trying to shield the environmental consequences of reintroducing 99 million single-use plastic bags from public scrutiny by relying on an EIR that evaluates the beneficial impact of removing those bags from the environment. This game of hide-the-ball is anathema to the full disclosure that CEQA requires. Use of an Addendum is inappropriate and illegal, and any action taken in reliance upon that Addendum will be susceptible to serious legal challenge. II. The Project Lacks Necessary Assessment of Significant Impacts This 10-page addendum does not begin to address the significant environmental impacts and other effects that will come from reversing the original environmental legislation. The Addendum implausibly concludes that, although the 2013 bag ban reduced bag use in the City from 102.2 million single-use bags to a mere 5.1 million bags, the now projected 99 million increase in single-use bags causes no significant impact. This flies in the face of the original EIR's conclusion that the implementation of the bag ban was environmentally beneficial. Indeed, the Addendum reaches this conclusion by legal subterfuge: the Addendum's analysis rests upon the assumption that repealing the bag ban today will have the same environmental impacts as never having imposed it in the first place. This fallacious conclusion ignores the fact that the City produces, consumes, and disposes of millions fewer plastic bags today than it did when the bag ban was enacted. Introducing millions of new bags to the environment would create significant impacts that must be disclosed, analyzed, mitigated to the extent feasible, and, if unmitigable, acknowledged in a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Addendum also improperly states that compliance with other existing environmental protection laws and regulations will ensure that there are no significant environmental impacts. Relying on other laws to avoid or mitigate impacts, without disclosure and analysis of the project's impacts demonstrating that compliance with these laws will ensure that the project creates no impacts, violates CEQA. 4 The increase of single-use plastic bags in circulation is likely to have significant, adverse impacts on Huntington Beach's environmental quality, including hydrology, water quality, protection of wildlife and ecosystems, coastal tourism, waste, and aesthetics. Because approval of the Ordinance will create these impacts, the City must conduct a new EIR, or at least a Subsequent EIR, to make an informed decision about the impacts of the Repeal Ordinance. Plastic litter is one of the most pervasive and menacing problems affecting the marine environment. The amount of plastic being produced worldwide has increased sharply in recent decades. Most of the plastic found on beaches and in our nearshore waters are the result of single-use plastic litter, such as plastic bags that easily enter the litter stream due to their ubiquitous and lightweight nature. They also blow into our waterways, damaging our watershed, oceans, waves and beaches and the ecosystems these areas support. It is estimated that land-based sources of marine litter account for 60-80 percent of all marine litter, and plastic accounts for between 60-90 percent of this litter. (Cal. Ocean Protection Council, "An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to Reduce & Prevent Ocean Litter," (2008),at 3). The original Bag Ban ordinance reduced litter in order to protect waterways and public health from the deleterious effects of plastic bag debris, including local impacts on marine life, quality of life, and recreation and tourism in our neighborhoods, waterways, and beaches, as well as more far-reaching impacts on our oceans. Hydrology and Water Quality. Due to their lightweight nature and propensity to enter the litter stream and watershed, single-use plastic bags are more likely than reusable bags to end up impacting water quality. Trash in waterways creates significant local water quality problems, including a degradation of coastal water quality. The Ocean Conservancy reports that plastic bags have been one of the top items collected on International Coastal Cleanup Day for over 25 years, with volunteers collecting over 7 million plastic bags in the annual clean up day. (Ocean Conservancy, Tracking Trash: 25 Years of Action for the Ocean (2011) p. 5, available at http://act.oceanconservancy.org/vdf/Marine Debris 2011 Report OC.pddf). Additionally, on International Coastal Cleanup Day in 2010, plastic bags were the most commonly collected item after cigarettes and plastic bottles, accounting for 10 percent of total debris items collected worldwide. (Id. at 34. See also Ocean Conservancy, The Ocean Trash Index (2012) p. 36, available at http://www.oceanconservancy.or /our- work/marine-debris/2012-icc-data- dp f.pd [evidencing that over 64,000 plastic bags were collected in California on International Coastal Cleanup Day in 2012]). The Repeal Ordinance will also have negative effects on stormwater. Plastic debris ends up in stormwater and reduces the quality of stormwater significantly. This Repeal Ordinance is inconsistent with the California Trash Policy, which was recently enacted by the California State Water Resources Control Board in order to work towards a goal of zero trash in our waterways. The Trash Policy calls upon cities to institute measures (such as bag bans)to prevent trash from entering the municipal storm drain system. (See http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/plans-policies/). Although much of the justification for this Repeal Ordinance (where any was offered) having a lack of significant environmental S effects rests on the conclusory statements that the City is in compliance with other regulations, the Addendum fails to take into account or analyze this one very relevant law that is put in place to protect our state waters from the impacts of trash. Marine Wildlife and Ecosystems. Plastic litter is particularly hazardous to marine wildlife because plastics are durable, buoyant, indigestible and non-biodegradable. (U.S. EPA, "Marine Debris in the North Pacific: A Summary of Existing Information and Identification of Data Gaps" 3 (2011)). Plastics photodegrade instead of biodegrade, which means they break down into smaller and smaller pieces and become entrenched in the ocean ecosystem. In various forms, plastics can starve, poison, and strangle marine life through ingestion and entanglement. More specifically, 50 to 80 percent of deceased sea turtles have ingested plastic. Plastic bags, which resemble jellyfish, are the most commonly found item in sea turtles' stomach. (N. Mrosovsky, "Leatherback Turtles: The Menace of Plastic," 58 Marine Pollution Bulletin 287 (2009)). Plastic trash can also negatively affect local resources by inhibiting the growth of aquatic vegetation, by reducing spawning and other habitat for wildlife, and through integration into the food chain. Waste. The introduction of 99 million new plastic bags into the City annually will impact the City's waste stream. The City will recycle less of its trash (due to the fact that plastic bags have a very low recycling rate), and will have difficulty managing the durable, non- biodegradable, light bags in a way that avoids or reduces the impact of waste on the City's residents and ecosystems. Aesthetics and Coastal Tourism. Single-use plastic bags clutter sidewalks, clog storm drains, create urban blight, and can diminish the value of a day at the beach. This Repeal Ordinance will not only have a direct negative effect on the residents and citizens of Huntington Beach who enjoy coastal resources, but it will also deter tourism and consequently impact the coastal tourism economy that relies upon a clean and popular beach environment to attract visitors. As the Council may know, the coastal city of Dana Point enacted their single-use plastic bag ban in 2012 largely in response to a call from local hotels and resorts to market the city as a cleaner and more environmentally- conscious vacation destination. The City of Huntington Beach would be acting counter to these environmental and economic objectives. The California Natural Resources Agency notes that"[a]ll economic activities relating to coastal recreation are affected by the quality of the environment," and the level of participation in coastal recreation industries affects many other industries and sectors of the economy. (Kildow& Colgan,National Ocean Economics Program, California's Ocean Economy: A Report to the Resources Agency, State of California (2005) p. 106, available at http://resources.ca.gov/press documents/CA Ocean Econ Reportpdf [noting, e.g., coastal recreation's impacts on the hotel, restaurant, and service industries]). Eliminating plastic bags from the waste stream significantly reduces the negative impacts of plastic bag pollution on recreational resources, urban communities, and ecosystems. 6 The cumulative effects analysis required by CEQA is also entirely absent from this Addendum. Not one of the impacts analyzed includes any cumulative impacts analysis, a clear deficiency under CEQA. III. The Project Description is Unstable and Inaccurate. A stable and accurate project description is an indispensable element of informed and legally sufficient environmental review processes under CEQA. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 19 (calling an accurate project description the "sine qua non" of CEQA review)). The Bag Ban Ordinance EIR project description has failed to include the primary objective of the Repeal Ordinance: to once again allow the use and rampant distribution of single-use plastic bags in the City of Huntington Beach, creating more light-weight single-use plastic bags in circulation within the trash system and litter system of the City; and necessarily allowing more litter (purposefully or accidentally) to enter the Huntington Beach environment, including the shoreline. The Addendum provides a complete 180 degrees opposite project description compared with the project description in the original EIR. The repeal of the bag ban is not equivalent to the original EIR's "no project alternative,"as the Addendum contends,,because—as discussed below- there is a new baseline that the City must use for analysis of the repeal, reflecting actual conditions when the Repeal Ordinance was introduced. The correct baseline would reflect a dramatically smaller quantity of plastic bags sold and entering the waste and litter streams in Huntington Beach, because the bag ban improved Huntington Beach's community and environment, including the oceans, waves and beaches, by eliminating millions of plastic bags that otherwise circulated in the environment. The project analyzed in the EIR promoted a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in Huntington Beach. The current project not only abandons that environmental goal, it undermines it by offering retail customers free single-use plastic bags where there were none before. Given that the original EIR identified the alternative of a 25 cent fee for paper bags as the environmentally superior alternative, it appears beyond debate that eliminating the 10 cent fee for paper bags and re-introducing plastic bags will cause impacts that were not analyzed in the original EIR. Furthermore, the objectives of the project analyzed in the original EIR were: ® Reducing the number of single-use plastic bags... Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags... ® Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments) and water quality • Avoiding litter and associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve). (See Original EIR Section 2.5 Project Objectives). The new project not only would abandon all of those goals, it would work directly counter to these project objectives by increasing the number of single-use bags and 7 associated adverse impacts to biological resources,water quality, stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment. IV.No Adequate Baseline Has Been Reported or Utilized in this Environmental Review. The environmental setting, or baseline, against which a proposed action is evaluated, is critical to an effective and defensible environmental review of a proposed project. The Addendum fails to revise the environmental setting and improperly deploys a baseline prior to the adoption of the bag ban in order to reach the conclusion that repealing the bag ban will have no significant effects as compared to the prior, pre-bag ban conditions. The correct baseline would reflect actual conditions when the Repeal Ordinance was introduced. Indeed, the Addendum utilizes a shifting baseline, electing to use whatever baselines it likes to establish that the repeal of the bag ban has no significant effects. For instance, under air quality, the Addendum appropriately compares air quality impacts of repealing the bag ban to the existing conditions with the bag ban in place. (p. 4; see also Greenhouse Gas analysis, p. 8 [using both current"with bag ban" setting and pre-bag ban setting to measure impacts].) In evaluating the impacts to biological resources, however, while noting that repealing the bag ban will lead to an additional 99 million plastic bags per year being utilized in the City, the Addendum claims that"litter related impacts would be the same or similar to conditions prior to the adoption of the Bag Ordinance." The baseline used to assess impacts is not existing conditions, as CEQA requires, but rather the pre-bag-ban existing conditions. The conclusion that"any litter related impacts would be the same or similar to conditions prior to adoption of the Bag Ordinance and thus would not result in any new significant impacts to sensitive species or to coastal and marine ecosystems," (p. 7) fails to answer the relevant question under CEQA: "What is the environmental effect of the change in law?" The original EIR did not address this question- the No Project Alternative analysis (a mere paragraph) simply presents the non-controversial statement that not imposing a bag ban would maintain existing conditions. The other alternatives evaluated the effect of different charges for paper bags. No one has answered the question whether permitting 99 million additional single-use plastic bags to be released into the general environment in Huntington Beach will have an impact on the environment. That was not the question in the original EIR (that EIR evaluated the impacts of banning bags, not adding bags), and it is certainly not a question that the Addendum accurately answers. The Addendum deploys the same shoddy analysis to its water quality impacts discussion, Where the original EIR noted that water quality would benefit as a result of the imposition of the bag ban by the reduction of plastic bags being deposited as litter into local waterways and the ocean, the Addendum facilely concludes that"any litter related impacts [to water quality] would be the same or similar to conditions prior to the adoption of the Bag Ordinance and thus would not result in any new significant impacts to water quality." (p. 9.) If imposing the bag ban was a Class IV beneficial impact under 8 CEQA to water quality, how can the City seriously contend that repealing that ban, and introducing all of the bags that the ban had beneficially removed from the waterways, is not a new impact simply by reference to a pre-existing state of pollution? This conclusion is utterly contrary to CEQA's mandate of informed decision-making and full analysis of the environmental consequences of an action. The unanalyzed consequence of inaction is not a substitute for the required analysis. The original Huntington Beach bag ban ordinance was approved at a second reading of the City Council in April 2013. The original bag ban ordinance went into effect on November 1, 2013 and is still in effect today. This allows for over 17 months of data regarding the impacts of the bag ban and the beneficial effect on the environmental resources of the City. Unfortunately, the City has done none of this analysis. The Addendum fails to report or analyze such data. It also fails to acknowledge or set a new baseline. The correct baseline would reflect a dramatically smaller quantity of plastic bags sold and entering the waste and litter streams in Huntington Beach, because the bag ban improved Huntington Beach's community and environment, including the oceans, waves and beaches, by eliminating millions of plastic bags that otherwise circulated in the environment. While the City's failure to use existing conditions as the baseline would render its CEQA analysis flawed even if conditions had not changed dramatically since the bag ban was enacted, it is clear that the failure to account for the change in the environmental setting has dramatic impacts on the EIR's analysis of the Repeal Ordinance. There are over 200 other municipalities across the United States that have enacted single-use bag ordinances. Many of these cities also have commissioned or required their staff to conduct follow up research regarding the efficacy of such bag bans and fees. Here are a few results regarding the efficacy of bag bans in other jurisdictions: In San Jose, Calif., which prohibits single use shopping bags, except for recycled paper bags at a 10-cent fee, the city experienced a downward trend in the presence of single-use plastic bags in the street (by 59 percent), storm drain (by 89 percent), and creek litter(by 60 percent), and an upward trend in the use of reusable bags (from 4 percent to 62 percent). (See http://www.cawrecycles.org_/files/SanJose updatememo Nov2012.pdf). ■ In the nation's capital, Washington D.C., a 5-cent fee on single-use bags resulted in the reduction from 270 million bags to 55 million bags within the first year, and 50 percent fewer bags were found in an annual local river cleanup. ■ Los Angeles County enacted a very similar bag ban ordinance to Huntington Beach and found a 95%reduction of all single-use bags with a 30%reduction of single-use paper bags. (See http://dpw.lacounty.gov/qpd/aboutthebap/and ham://ladpw.org/epd/abouttheba /g PDF/Bad%20Ban%20Status%20Nov%2 02012.pdf). ® Alameda County's bag ban resulted in 85% fewer bag purchases overall, and twice as many customers are bringing their own bag after the 9 ordinance was enacted or are not using a bag at all. (See http://www.sto-pwaste.org/abo it/news/successful-results-bag-ordinance). ■ In San Francisco, the first city to ban single-use plastic bags, there was an 18% decrease in street litter found from 2007-2009 after the ordinance was enacted. (See Table ES-5 here: http://www.cawrecycles.org/files/SF2009LitterReportFINAL-Sep 15- 09.pdf). ■ San Mateo County reports its reusable bag ordinance resulted in 162% more people bringing their own reusable bags and 130% more people carrying out items without a bag. (See http://www.cawrecycles.org/files/San%20Mateo%20County%20Bag%20 Report%202014.pdf). Based on this data from other cities' bag ban ordinances, repealing the bag ban would lead to a direct reversal of these benefits, "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air,water,minerals, flora, fauna...and aesthetic significance." (CEQA Guidelines § 15382; see also Pub. Res. Code § 21068). Once the original Bag Ban Ordinance was enacted, the environmental setting discussed in the original EIR ceased to exist and a new status quo took effect. California courts have held that CEQA requires that a project, such as the Repeal Ordinance, must be measured against the "real conditions on the ground." (Environmental Planning&Information Council v. City of El Dorado, (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350,354). The City of Huntington Beach failed to analyze the conditions on the ground in 2015 when they began to contemplate a reversal of the environmental legislation. Thus, the Repeal Ordinance was enacted without the requisite environmental review or consideration under CEQA. V. The Analysis and Consideration of Necessary Mitigation Measures Are Entirely Lacking. Due to the Addendum's inaccurate assessment of significant environmental effects, no mitigation is offered for significant impacts that will result from the project. The Addendum has a pattern of describing environmental harms that will result from the Repeal Ordinance but then dismissing them as "less than significant" due to adherence to basic existing environmental regulations. For instance, the Addendum p. 6 concedes that a 99 million count increase in the circulation of plastic bags can increase litter entering the coastal and marine habitats, thus increasing litter-related impacts to sensitive species, plant communities, and coastal wetland areas, and on p. 8 admits there will be a degradation of water quality as a result of this Repeal Ordinance. However, both concerns are dismissed as insignificant due to the City's regulation under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit system and other existing regulations. This argument completely fails to analyze the real harms that will result from this Repeal Ordinance and does not satisfy the mandate under CEQA to analyze alternatives and impose mitigation measures. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, (1988) 47 Cal.3d. 367, 392 (holding that EIR must investigate both alternative and mitigation measures]; Habitat and 10 Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1304 (stating that"a potentially feasible alternative that might avoid a significant impact must be discussed and analyzed in an EIR so as to provide information to the decision makers about the alternative's potential for reducing environmental impacts."); Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261("The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.")). Based on the original EIR's analysis—which will form the basis for the proposed project approval—it is clear either that mitigation will be necessary to avoid significant impacts from approval of the Repeal Ordinance, or more likely that even if all feasible mitigation is implemented, significant impacts will remain, requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the project. A new, updated analysis using a proper baseline and proper consideration of impacts will surely disclose more impacts with more specificity, necessitating further mitigation or findings to justify overriding unmitigable impacts. The original project had a goal of"avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve)." The current project, as a direct reversal of the original bag ban ordinance, would necessarily have adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics, wildlife, ecosystems, waste management, and the marine environment through an increase of bag ban litter and trash resulting from the 99 million more single-use plastic bags in the trash and litter stream annually as a result of this.project. The original EIR acknowledges that single-use plastic bags are easily dispersed by wind and that such dispersal may lead to the deposition of bags directly into the marine environment. The Addendum relies upon best management practices to conclude that the reduction of litter entering waterways by these means sufficiently addresses the impacts of plastic bag litter; without addressing in any way the significant contribution that windblown bags directly entering the marine environment may cause, and proposing no mitigation for such impact. Moreover, the Addendum contains no analysis whatsoever of the efficacy of the relied upon management practices for the control of plastic bag debris, which the EIR admits are very difficult to properly manage and keep from entering the environment. Indeed, the EIR notes the existence of all of the management practices relied upon in the Addendum; but still notes that the propensity of plastic bags to block and clog drains leads to significant stormwater pollution. In spite of all this, the Addendum did not conclude that this would be a"significant environmental impact" and therefore did not include mitigation measures to address these impacts on the stormwater system and valuable ecological resources. Addendum p. 8 admits there will be a degradation of water quality as a result of this Repeal, but offers no mitigation for this environmental degradation. Furthermore,the analysis of water quality impacts on pp. 9-10 is completely insufficient. The Addendum does not investigate or address the effects of the 99 million-count increase in single-use plastic bags. The Addendum focuses instead on the supply-side of 11 manufacturing and do admit that plastic bags are made from crude oil and natural gas, utilizing various chemicals and materials but fails to analyze the effects of this drastic annual increase in plastic bag circulation. Additionally, there is no analysis of how the increase of single-use plastic bag litter will affect water quality, including the water quality of local streams, rivers and coastal waters. In addition to the harm to marine mammals and the harm to ecological resources, the introduction of more plastic bag litter in the marine environment will degrade water quality, which will affect-public health. It will especially affect the beachgoing public who swim and recreate in Huntington Beach's nearshore waters; however, there is no mitigation offered for any of these harms. VI.The City Failed to Consider and Analyze a Reasonable Range of Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The Addendum fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the bag ban repeal. The very brief Addendum summarily concludes "[s]ince the proposed repeal of the Bag Ordinance does not require substantial changes to the No Project Alternative, major revisions of the EIR analysis are not warranted." (Addendum at p. 10). It thus relies on the alternatives analysis from the original EIR for the bag ban, purporting to select the No Project Alternative from that EIR as identical to the proposed Repeal Ordinance. But the No Project Alternative was "analyzed" in a paragraph in the EIR in 2013, when there was no bag ban in place and it was the current status quo of the Huntington Beach community. The current "no project" alternative is the maintenance of the bag ban. In 2015, the City of Huntington Beach is a very different place for shoppers and beachgoers as a result of the bag ban. The City must consider and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, which apply in today's world(with the bag ban in effect), and were not addressed in this Addendum. VII. The City Failed to Give the Public Meaningful Opportunity to Comment on the Environmental Review. One of the procedural assurances of CEQA is to provide individuals with the opportunity to participate effectively in all steps of the environmental review process, including investigation of alternatives and mitigation measures. The procedural due process afforded by CEQA requires that the law be "scrupulously followed" because the environmental review process "protects not only the environment, but also informed self- government." (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, (1988) 47 Cal.3d. 367, 392). One of CEQA's core purposes is to provide for full public participation so that the City Council can receive and evaluate the public's reaction to the environmental consequences of a proposed local law. Here, that was not done: The Addendum was not circulated for public comment and was only made available a few days before the brief discussion and swift vote on first reading of the Repeal Ordinance. CONCLUSION 12 If the City continues to affirm the Repeal Ordinance with a lack of environmental analysis, it will be acting in contravention of CEQA's mandate to consider environmental impacts of projects and allow for meaningful public participation. This is unacceptable to the people who work to safeguard the environmental integrity of Huntington Beach, including the Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter of Surfrider Foundation, Orange County Coastkeeper, Sierra Club, and Californians Against Waste. We ask that City of Huntington Beach rescind its approval of the Addendum. The City Council should not vote to enact the Repeal Ordinance, but should instead require meaningful environmental review of this reversal of environmental legislation, and schedule a new hearing with meaningful public information, at which point the public can have a full and fair opportunity to participate. Sincerely, Angela T. Howe, Esq. Shane Coons Legal Director Co-Chair, Rise Against Plastics Surfrider Foundation Surfrider Foundation Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter O 6�—V Mark Murray Colin A. Kelly, Esq. Executive Director Staff Attorney Californians Against Waste Orange County Coastkeeper Inland Empire Waterkeeper Ray Heimstra Chair Sierra Club Orange County Conservation Committee 13 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#22190 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Shainna Breslow Description: Well done City Council. A year has past and still no covers on the trash bins on the beach. The birds continue to strew trash all over the beach. Your claim was it was too expensive at the time. Also, when I jumped in the water to go surfing the other day I saw three plastic bags floating in the water. Do you people ever visit the beach? Or do you just stay on the concrete? What type of legacy are you leaving for you children? Your actions tell the rest of us that you don't care about the health of our beaches and oceans. And you definitely don't care about your children's future. Pure greed. You are the only city who reversed the bag ban. You didn't even submit an EIR. You are obviously bought out by financial interests. I just wonder if you have any conscience at all. Expected Close Date: May 13, 2015 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i