Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReusable Bag Ordinance - Resolution 2013-12 certifying Envir °• Renee Ramirez RECEIVED ® Assistant Clerk-Recorder JUG e013 Orange County Dep.lu of p-aming Clerk-Recorder's Office uil it-o 12 Civic Center Plaza,Room 106,P.O. Box 238, Santa Ana,CA 92702 web:www.oc.ca.gov/recorder/ PHONE(714)834-5284 FAX(714) 834-2500 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN ST,3RD FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 Office of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION-NEG.DEC. The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 04/05/2013 It remained posted for 30(thirty)days. Renee Ramirez Assistant Clerk-Recorder In and for the County of Orange By: Moran,Teresa Deputy Public Resource Code 21092.3 The notice required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county*** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days.The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 dais unless otherwise required by law to be posted for 30 days The CoupV Clerk shall post notices within 24 hors of receipt. Public Resource Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted ***within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted fora period of 30 days. ***Thereafter,the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by*** Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Renee Ramirez,Assistant Clerk-Recorder I Le � NO F E APR 0 5 2013 * R 0 0 0 5 7 4 4 3 7 7 201385000259 935 am 04/05/13 ORANGE COUNTY CL RI(-RECORDER DEPARTMENT 242 OR03 Z03 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPUTY BY: N®TICE OF DETE MATI®N 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 W � a c SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of o Public Resources Code. ® W ore o State Clearinghouse Number: 2011111053 Ln o UJ Project Title: Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance CL Q Applicant Name and Address: City of Huntington Beach,2000 Main Street Huntington Beach 0 92648 UJ � m Project Location(include county): Huntington Beach,Orange County California 0 Project Description: The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Single Use Carrot Bag Ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carr out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within Huntington Beach and establish a ten G 0)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-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 (RI 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, Nwas not,adopted for this project. 6. Findings®were, ❑were not,made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® Fee: Exempt per Govt.Code Section 6103 This is to certify that the final®Environmental Impact Report, OMitigated Negative Declaration, with comments and responses and record of the project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 9 48 April 1, 2413 bat Date of Final Action Si tur Title State of California—Natural Resources Agency EDlMUND G.BROWN JR Govem = . DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 www.ydidrfe.ep.g CE .Filing Fee No Effect Determination Applicant Name and Address: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CEQA Lead Agency: City of Huntington Beach APR 0 5 2013 Project Name: Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER DEPARTMENT CEQA Document Type: Environmental Impact Report BY; DEPUTY State Clearing House Number andlor local agency ID number: SCH o. 201 1 1 1 1053 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- z 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 Q o charge, and each store would be strongly encouraged to promote the use of reusable bags o through staff education and customer outreach. LU C%4 0 o U trD IY C7 s' W Determination, Based on a review of the project as proposed, the Department of Find � 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 z project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does o in 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, Please 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 FGCAection 711.4 (3). r a IV DFG Approved By. ,,, Jennifer Edwards Date: 041031201.3 Title: Environmental Scientist ' Conserving California's WMRfe Since 1870 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE NO.305 Adopted by the City Council on APRIL 1,2013 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MU- NICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 5.95 REG- ULATING THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS ® R O O F O F AND RECYCLABLE PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS AND® PROMOTING THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS" SYNOPSIS: PUBLICATION e eusa le Ba Ordinance prohibits the distribu- tion o p astic carryon bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington, Beach and establishes a 10-cent charge on the' issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all) grocery,stores,-supermarkets, drug stores, phar-; macies, convenience stores, food marts.and farmer's markets.-The Ordinance would exempt' STATE OF CALIFORNI ) from.the participatinin cent charge those customers who are /'1g in either the California Special Sup- plemental Food Program for the Women, Infants, and Children,or the Supplemental Food Program. The Ordinance requires that paper bags be 100%' ) recyclable overall, contain a minimum of ao� COUNTY OF ORANGE post-consumer recycled material,and be accepted for recycling in-curbside programs within the City,f among other criteria. The Ordinance further I requires that reusable bags be specifically de-1 signed and manufactured at a minimum lifetime am a citizen of the United States and a of 125 uses, be machine.washable or made from a,materialthat can be cleaned or disinfected,does! resident of the County of Los Angeles; I not contain lead,, cadmium, or other heavy elements in toxic amounts. Plastic bags that.are am over the age of eighteen years, and a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to' be reusable bags per the definition in the not a party to or interested in the notice Ordinance.. All stores affected by the proposed Ordinance are) published. I am a principal clerk of the required to provide reusable bags to'customers; either for sale or at,no charge, and each store is' HUNTINGTON BEACH strongly encouraged to promote the/ use ofi reusable bags through staff education and cus INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a tomer outreach. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale,free of charge,either reusable,.;. newspaper of general, circulation on bags or recyclable paper bags or both, to; customers,at the store's option. September 29, 1961, case A6214, and Stores located within Huntington Beach that would{ be affected.by the proposed Ordinance include the. June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the following: 1. Full-line self-service retail stores with gross. City of Huntington Beach, County of annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000),, or more, that sell a line of dry goods,-canned) Orange, and the State of California. ;goods, or nonfood items and some perishable; items; Attached to this Affidavit is a true and Examples:,Wal-mart,Target,Home Depot I 2.Stores of at least ten thousand(10,000)square) complete copy as was printed and feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax I pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales) published on the following date(s): and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue &I Taxation Code) and that has a pharmacy licensed) pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000)of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code;or Examples:Kohl's,Michaels,Hobby Lobby Thursday, April 11, 2013 3.Orug,stores,pharmacies,supermarkets,groceryf stores, convenience food stores, food marts, orl other entities engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, including those stores with a Type 1 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of I Alcoholic Beverage Control: certify (or declare) under penalty Examples:CVS or'Walgreens'pharmacies,7-11 and; other convenience or liquor stores ' of perjury that the foregoing is true The Ordinance does not apply to stores of less than 10,000 square feet that are not included in: and correct. one of the three above specified categories.It also' does not apply to restaurants and-other food' service providers.Therefore,allows these retailers) to continue to provide plastic bags to customers: for prepared take-out food intended for consump-I tion' off of the food provider's premises. The Ordinance also allows "product bags" without' Executed on April 16 2013 handles to be provided to a customer in order to carry produce, meats,'or other food items to the; point of sale inside a store. at Los Angeles, California -This ordinance and EIR were originally initiated by! the City Council on August 15, 2011, in response; to concerns regarding the environmental impacts related to single-use carryout bags. The City, subsequently authorized a contract with Rinconi I8onsultants to prepare an EIR for the proposedl ordinance, which was prepared according toy schedule. 1, ! II On February 4, 2013, the City Council directed! staff to schedule the Reusable Bag Ordinance and. EIR 2011-002 for consideration at the regularly! Signature scheduled meeting on Monday,March 18,2013. I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of,thel City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting) held April 1,2013 by the following roll call vote: I AYES:Hardy,Boardman,Shaw,Katapodis I NOES:Sullivan,Harper ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Carchio THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. This ordinance Is effective 30 days after, adoption. The Operative Date of this ordinance- Is November I,2013. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 714-S36-S227 JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Published,H H.B.Independent 4/11/2013 Dept. ID PL 13-004 Page 1 of 6 Meeting Date:3/18/2013 0 Vat CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION r MEETING DATE: 3/18/2013 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve the Reusable Bag Ordinance by adopting Resolution No. 2013-12, certifying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2011-002, and approving for introduction Ordinance No. 3975 Statement of Issue: A City Council-directed Reusable Bag Ordinance (Ordinance) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2011-002 are being transmitted for your consideration. Studies have shown that the prohibition of the distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags will reduce the likelihood that plastic bags will enter the environment and thereby improve the aesthetics of the City's beaches, parks, and other public spaces. The EIR represents an analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Financial Impact: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: A) Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-002 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by adopting Resolution No. 2013-12, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011- 002 (SCH#2011111053) for the Reusable Bag Ordinance (Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance)" (ATTACHMENT NO. 1). B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3975, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach, Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 5.95 Regulating the Use of Plastic Carryout Bags and Recyclable Paper Carryout Bags and Promoting the Use of Reusable Bags" (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Continue Final Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002 and Ordinance No. 3975 and direct staff accordingly. 2. Deny Final Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002 with findings for denial. 3. Certify Final Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002 and do not adopt Ordinance No. 3975. HB -97- Item 9. - I Dept. ID PL 13-004 Page 2 of 6 Meeting Date: 3/18/2013 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: Citywide The Reusable Bag Ordinance would prohibit the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach and establish 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. The Ordinance would exempt from the 10 cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women, Infants, and Children, or the Supplemental Food Program. The Ordinance requires that paper bags be 100% recyclable overall, contain a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled material, and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City, among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured at a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead, cadmium, or other heavy elements in toxic amounts. Plastic bags that are a minimum.of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in 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. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable bags or recyclable paper bags or both, to customers, at the store's option. Stores located within Huntington Beach that would be affected by the proposed Ordinance include the following: 1. Full-line self-service retail stores with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, that sell a line of dry goods, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items; Examples: Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot 2. Stores of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue &Taxation Code) and that has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or Examples: Kohl's, Michaels, Hobby Lobby 3. Drug stores, pharmacies, supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience food stores, food marts, or other entities engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Examples: CVS or Walgreens pharmacies, 7-11 and other convenience or liquor stores Item 9. - 2 HB -98- Dept.ID PL 13-004 Page 3 of 6 Meeting Date:3/18/2013 The Ordinance would not apply to stores of less than 10,000 square feet that are not included in one of the three above specified categories. It would also not apply to restaurants and other food service providers. Therefore, it would allow these retailers to continue to provide plastic bags to customers for prepared take-out food intended for consumption off of the food provider's premises. The Ordinance would also allow"product bags" without handles to be provided to a customer in order to carry produce, meats, or other food items to the point of sale inside a store. This ordinance and EIR were originally initiated by the City Council on August 15, 2011, in response to concerns regarding the environmental impacts related to single-use carryout bags. The City subsequently authorized a contract with Rincon Consultants to prepare an EIR for the proposed ordinance, which was prepared according to schedule. On February 4, 2013, the City Council directed staff to schedule the Reusable Bag Ordinance and EIR 2011-002 for consideration at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, March 18, 2013 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-002 represents an analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance (Ordinance) which aims to promote the use of reusable bags in lieu of plastic or paper carryout bags. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area as identified by the City of Huntington Beach through the project's Initial Study. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and hydrology and water quality. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed Ordinance including the CEQA required "No Project" alternative are also provided. The EIR is referenced as Attachment No. 3 to this staff report and consists of two parts. The first, titled "Draft Environmental Impact Report", was circulated for a minimum 45-day public review period. The second part, titled "Final Environmental Impact Report" includes comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments and text changes to the Draft EIR to clarify or correct information in response to comments or identified as necessary by staff. B. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The discussion below addresses both the Ordinance's background and implementation characteristics and environmental analysis conducted for the proposed Ordinance. Reusable Bag Ordinance The City Attorney's office prepared the proposed Ordinance based on similar ordinances adopted by the City of Long Beach and County of Los Angeles. A number of cities and counties have passed such ordinances within their jurisdictions. These include, but are not limited to: the City of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Manhattan Beach, the City of Malibu, the City of Santa Monica, Santa Clara County and the City of Long Beach. In general, coastal communities have determined that it is in their best interests to make efforts to reduce negative impacts associated with the aesthetic and environmental degradation of plastic bag litter. As identified as part of the environmental process, the City's objectives for the proposed 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 • 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 bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments) and water quality • Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to storm water systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) HB -99- Item 9. - 3 Dept.ID PL 13-004 Page 4 of 6 Meeting Date:3/18/2013 The proposed Ordinance accomplishes these objectives and is consistent with regulations adopted elsewhere. Based on the definitions set forth in the proposed Ordinance, the Reusable Bag Ordinance is expected to apply to approximately 218 retailers in the City of Huntington Beach. Notices of the public hearing for the Reusable Bag Ordinance were sent to each of these stores as a part of the processing procedure. The proposed Ordinance would incrementally reduce the number of single-use plastic carryout bags that are manufactured and would incrementally increase the number of single-use paper and reusable bags manufactured compared to existing conditions. Further, the proposed mandatory 10 cent charge per bag for the distribution of recycled paper carryout bags would create a disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at regulated stores. The proposed Ordinance may lead to some short-term increase in single-use paper bag use as consumers would be unable to get a free plastic bag while shopping, but may be willing to pay a charge to use paper bags. The mandatory charge would be for each paper carryout bag provided by the affected stores. Revenues generated from the charge would be used for increased costs related to compliance with the Ordinance, actual costs associated with providing recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags, or costs associated with a store's educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags. The proposed Ordinance strongly encourages each affected store to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags. All stores would be required to keep complete and accurate records or documents, for a minimum of three years from the date of sale, of the total number of recyclable paper carryout bags provided, and the total amount of monies collected. The records completed by the store would be available for inspection at no cost to the City. Environmental Impact Report Based on the discussion of the Initial Study, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 11-002 analyzes the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance's potential impacts to four specific issue areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Hydrology and Water Quality. Section 4.1 Air Quality analyzes the proposed Ordinance's long-term impacts on local and regional air quality, focusing on impacts associated with carryout bag manufacturing facilities (which may or may not exist in Huntington Beach or in Orange County) and impacts associated with truck trips that deliver carryout bags in Huntington Beach. A shift toward reusable bags could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production, which has the potential to increase air pollutant emissions. However, the proposed Reusable 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. Further, implementation of the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable bags to local retailers. However, emissions would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operational significance thresholds. Therefore, potential air quality impacts associated with the Reusable Bag Ordinance would be less than significant and do not necessitate mitigation measures. Section 4.2 Biological Resources discusses impacts to biological resources including marine waters, plant life, and wildlife as a result of carryout bags entering the environment as litter, which can adversely affect terrestrial animal species, and marine species that ingest the plastic bags (or residue of plastic bags) or become tangled in the bag. Like single-use plastic carryout bags, single- use paper carryout bags are also released into the environment as litter, although they generally Item 9. - 4 HB -100- Dept.ID PL 13-004 Page 5 of 6 Meeting Date:3/18/2013 have less impact on wildlife because they are not as resistant to breakdown as is plastic, less likely to cause entanglement, and can be chewed effectively and digested by many animals. Reusable bags can also be released in to the environment as litter. However, due to the sturdiness and weight of a reusable bag, they are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter when compared to single-use plastic and paper bags. Each type of carry-out bag's potential to become litter varies and is based on the number of bags disposed as well as the bag's weight and material. In accordance with the proposed Ordinance, reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use carryout bags and less likely to enter the terrestrial or marine environments. Although the proposed Reusable 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 be expected to 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. The EIR concludes that impacts would have a beneficial effect, and do not necessitate mitigation measures. Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions focuses on the manufacturing, transportation and disposal of carryout bags as these activities are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions relative to the proposed Ordinance. Although the total number of carryout bags would be reduced as a result of the increase of single-use paper bags, GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing, transport, and disposal of carryout bags would increase. However, the proposed Ordinance's net increase compared to existing conditions would not exceed maximum thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Further the EIR concludes that the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance would also be generally consistent with applicable regulations or plans addressing GHG reductions. As such, potential impacts would be less than significant and do not necessitate mitigation measures. Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality examines the local watershed and hydrologic conditions to exemplify the types of effects that may occur as a result of the manufacturing (that may or may not occur in Huntington Beach or in Orange County) and disposal of carryout bags. Water quality may be affected by carryout bags in two different ways: litter from carryout bags and the use of materials for processing activities. Litter that enters the storm drain system may clog drains and could result in contamination or may be transported into the local watershed or coastal habitat. In addition, manufacturing facilities may utilize materials that, if released in an uncontrolled manner, could degrade the water quality in local waterways. Single-use paper carryout bags have less litter- related effect on water quality than single-use plastic bags; however, the manufacturing process for paper bags may utilize various chemicals and materials and may also require the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals for production resources (such as pulp). Reusable bags are less likely to affect water quality, since they are heavier and sturdier and are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags. However, similar to single-use paper carryout bags, the manufacturing process for reusable bags can utilize materials such as chemicals or fertilizer for production of resources (such as cotton)that if released, either directly into a stream or indirectly via storm water runoff, could degrade water quality in local water bodies. Although the proposed 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. Further, bag manufacturers are required to adhere to existing regulations. Therefore, the EIR concludes that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant without mitigation. The City received three comment letters (included in Attachment No. 3) on the Draft EIR for the Reusable Bag Ordinance from the Native American Heritage Commission, Orange County Coastkeeper, and the Huntington Beach Environmental Board. The Native American Heritage Association comment letter did not express support or opposition to the proposed Ordinance, and xB -101- Item 9. - 5 Dept. ID PL 13-004 Page 6 of 6 Meeting Date: 3/18/2013 the letters from Orange County Coastkeeper and the Huntington Beach Environmental Board expressed support for the proposed Ordinance. C. SUMMARY Adopting the Reusable Bag Ordinance will initiate a community-wide shift from the use of plastic and paper carryout bags and promote the use of reusable bags for retail customers in Huntington Beach. The reduction of single-use plastic carryout bags will reduce the likelihood that plastic bags will enter the environment, causing harm to sensitive marine ecosystems. Further, the Ordinance will improve the aesthetics of the City's beaches, parks, and other public spaces, which provide essential recreational opportunities that support the City's economy and community health. Staff recommends that the City Council certify EIR No. 2011-002 because: • The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; • The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance; and • The EIR identifies project alternatives for City Council consideration, including a "No Project" alternative. Environmental Status: Prior to any action on the proposed Ordinance, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2011-002, which analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance. The EIR also provides an analysis of potential alternatives pursuant to CEQA. Staff is recommending certification of EIR No. 2011-002 as adequate and complete. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance economic development Attachment(s): 1. City Council Resolution No. 2013-12, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011111053) for the Reusable Bag Ordinance (Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance)" 2. Ordinance No. 3975, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 5.95 Regulating the Use of Plastic Carryout Bags and Recyclable Paper Carryout Bags and Promoting the Use of Reusable Bags" 3. Final EIR No. 2011-002 4. City Council Member Item for August 15, 2011, and February 4, 2013 5. 1 PowerPoint Presentation Slides SH:KDC:MBB:HB Item 9. - 6 HB -102- ATTACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH02011111053) FOR THE REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE (SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE) WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 11-002, State Clearinghouse #2011111053, ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance (the "Project"), and On November 17, 2011, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on December 7, 2011, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on February 8, 2012; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from February 9, 2012 to March 25, 2012 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall, the Huntington Beach Central Library, and the City's website; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council as a section within a separately bound document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated January 2013; and Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on March 18, 2013, and received and considered public testimony, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Consistent with CEiQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EK the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public 1 Resolution No. 2013-12 agencies commenting on the Draft EIR), the Text Changes to the Draft EIR (bound together with the Responses to Comments) and all Planning and Building Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. 2. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided on the Project, and that all potential impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant without mitigation. 4. The City. Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. 5. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. 6. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The City Council finds that the minor refinements that have been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the text of the Draft EIR do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. 7. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to adopting the proposed Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. 2 Resolution No. 2013-12 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 t h day of March ; 2013. e Mayor REVIE rAPPROVED: I ITIA D APPROVED: Cit ger Director of Planning and Building APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cit Attorne 3 Res. No. 2013-12 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 March 18, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Hardy, Boardman, Shaw, Katapodis NOES: Sullivan, Harper, Carchio ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None i Ciluclerk and ex-officio Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #2 ORDINANCE NO. 3975 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 5.95 REGULATING THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS AND PROMOTING THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 5.95, said chapter to read as follows: Chapter 5.95 USE OF PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER Sections: 5.95.010 Definitions. 5.95.020 Plastic carryout bags prohibited 5.95.030 Permitted bags 5.95.040 Regulation of recyclable paper carryout bags. 5.95.050 Use of reusable bags 5.95.060 Exempt customers 5.95.070 Operative date 5.95.080 Enforcement and violation-penalty 5.95.090 Severability 5.95.100 No conflict with federal or state law 5.95.010 Definitions. The following definitions apply to the use of these terms for the purposes of this chapter: a. "Customer"means any person or persons purchasing goods from a store. b. "Certified Farmer's Market" has the meaning provided in Section 8.04.10(a) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. C. "Operator" means the person in control of, or having the responsibility for, the operation of a store, which may include,but is not limited to, the owner of the store. d. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group,however organized. e. "Plastic carryout bag" means any bag made predominantly of plastic derived from either petroleum or a biologically-based source, such as corn or other plant sources, which is 11-3032/92433.docx 1 Ordinance No. 3975 provided to a customer at the point of sale. Plastic carryout bag includes compostable and biodegradable bags but does not include reusable bags,produce bags or product bags. f. "Postconsumer recycled material" means a material that would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having completed its intended end use and product life cycle. Postconsumer recycled material does not include materials and by-products generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing and fabrication process. g. 'Produce bag" or "product bag" means any bag without handles used exclusively to carry produce, meats, or other food items to the point of sale inside a store or to prevent such food items from coming into direct contact with other purchased items. h. "Recyclable" means material that can be sorted, cleansed, and reconstituted using available recycling collection programs for the purpose of using the altered form in the manufacture of a new product. Recycling does not include burning, incinerating, converting, or otherwise thermally destroying solid waste. i. "Recyclable paper carryout bag" means a paper bag that meets all of the following requirements: (1) contains no old growth fiber; (2) is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable overall and contains a minimum of forty percent(40%) postconsumer recycled material; (3) is capable of composting, consistent with the timeline and specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6400; (4) is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in the City; (5) has printed on the bag the name of the manufacturer, the location where the bag was manufactured, and the percentage of postconsumer recycled material used; and (6) displays the word "Recyclable" in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag. j. "Reusable bag" means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: (1) has a minimum lifetime of one hundred twenty-five (125) uses, which for purposes of this Section, means the capability of carrying a minimum of twenty- two (22) pounds, one hundred twenty-five (125) times over a distance of at least one hundred seventy-five (175) feet; (2) has a minimum volume of fifteen(15) liters; (3) is machine washable or is made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected; 11-3032/92433.docx 2 Ordinance No. 3975 (4) does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags; (5) has printed on the bag, or on a tag that is permanently affixed to the bag,the name of the manufacturer, the location where the bag was manufactured, a statement that the bag does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, and the percentage of postconsumer recycled material used, if any; and (6) if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick. k. "Store" means any of the following retail establishments located within the City of Huntington Beach: (1) A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, that sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items; (2) A store of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue & Taxation Code) and that has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or (3) A drug store, pharmacy, supermarket, grocery store, convenience food store, food mart, or other entity engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 5 95 020 Plastic carryout bags prohibited. a. No store shall provide to any customer a plastic carryout bag. b. This prohibition applies to bags provided for the purpose of carrying away goods from the point of sale and does not apply to produce bags or product bags. C. No person shall distribute a plastic carryout bag or any paper bag at the Farmers' Markets, except produce bags or product bags. 5.95.030 Permitted bags. All stores shall provide or make available to a customer, only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale, subject to the terms of this Chapter. Nothing in this Chapter prohibits customers from using bags of any type that they bring to the store themselves or from carrying away goods that are not placed in a bag, in lieu of using bags provided by the store. 11-3032/92433.docx 3 Ordinance No. 3975 5 95 040 Regulation of recyclable paper carryout bags. a. Any store that provides a recyclable paper carryout bag to a customer must charge the customer ten cents ($0.10) for each bag provided, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. b. No store shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer any portion of the ten cent ($0.10) charge required in Subsection a, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. C. All stores must indicate on the customer receipt the number of recyclable paper carryout bags provided and the total amount charged for the bags. d. All monies collected by a store under this Chapter will be retained by the store and may be used only for the following purposes: (1) Costs associated with complying with the requirements of this Chapter; (2) Actual costs of providing recyclable paper carryout bags; or (3) Costs associated with a store's educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags, if any. e. All stores shall keep complete and accurate records for a minimum period of three years from the date of sale, of the total number of recyclable paper carryout bags provided and the total amount of monies collected for providing recyclable paper carryout bags, which record shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by any City employee authorized to enforce this Section. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the store's address. A responsible agent or officer of the store shall confirm that the information provided is accurate and complete. f. Any store that fails to maintain complete records or documents, maintains false, inaccurate or misleading records, or otherwise fails to comply with this section be in violation of this Section and such store shall be subject the fines set forth in Section 5.95.080. 5 95.050 Use of reusable bags. a. All stores must provide reusable bags to customers, either for sale or at no charge. b. Each store is strongly encouraged to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags. C. Each store is strongly encouraged to provide to the City and to the public a summary of any efforts a store has undertaken to promote the use of reusable bags by customers. 5 95.060 Exempt customers. All stores must provide at the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable bags or recyclable paper carryout bags or both, at the store's option, to any customer participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code or in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to 11-3032/92433.doex 4 Ordinance No. 3975 Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 5.95.070 Operative date. This Chapter shall become operative six months from the effective date of this Ordinance. 5.95.080 Enforcement and violation-penalty. a. The City Manager has primary responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter. The City Manager or designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, investigating violations, issuing fines and entering the premises of any store during business hours. If the City Manager or designee determines that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the operator of a store that a violation has occurred and the potential penalties that will apply for future violations. b. Any store that violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter after a written warning notice has been issued for that violation shall be guilty of an infraction. C. If a store has subsequent violations of this Chapter that are similar in kind to the violation addressed in a written warning notice, the following penalties will be imposed and shall be payable by the operator of the store: (1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for the first violation after the written warning notice is given; (2) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for the second violation after the written warning notice is given; or (3) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for the third and any subsequent violations after the written warning notice is given. d. A fine shall be imposed for each day a violation occurs or is allowed to continue. C. All fines collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to assist with the implementation and enforcement of the requirements of this Chapter. f. Any store operator who receives a written warning notice of fine may request an administrative review of the accuracy of the determination or the propriety of any fine issued, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Manager no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of a written warning notice or fine, as applicable. The notice of appeal must include all facts supporting the appeal and any statements and evidence, including copies of all written documentation and a list of any witnesses that the appellant wishes to be considered in connection with the appeal. The appeal will be heard by a hearing officer designated by the City Manager. The hearing officer will conduct a hearing 11-3032/92433.docx 5 Ordinance No. 3975 concerning the appeal within forty-five (45) days from the date that the notice of appeal is filed, or on a later date if agreed upon by the appellant and the City, and will give the appellant ten(10) days prior written notice of the date of the hearing. The hearing officer may sustain, rescind, or modify the written warning notice or fine, as applicable, by written decision. The hearing officer will have the power to waive any portion of the fine in a manner consistent with the decision. The decision of the hearing officer is final and effective on the date of service of the written decision, is not subject to further administrative review, and constitutes the final administrative decision. 5.95.09 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. 5.95.100 No conflict with federal or state law. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to create any requirement, power or duty that is in conflict with any federal or state law. 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 1 st day of April , 2013. e Mayor ATTEST: 1NI, D AN AP OVED: 4&vld ` 2A9f-'4) City Clerk Deputy City Manager REVIEWED r VED: 94 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City a e MUJ4J City Attorn ; 11-3032/92433.docx 6 Ord. No. 3975 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 March 18,2013, and was again read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on April 1,2013, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Hardy, Boardman, Shaw, Katapodis NOES: Sullivan , Harper, ABSENT: Carchio 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 Fountain Valley Independent on April 11,2013. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn, Qi1y Clerk Ci . Clerk and ex-officio erk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTAC H M E N T #3 IV - _ �5 f `l 11 _ V - i 1 - - - a a�v- R 1 -, - 4 r - 5`' ^-a' F 'f '3If - ic� .L +' �,,, '" - -' .,a 'ry 1 -s,t - --e r v�" 1 s a 4 ,, yr . - r - _ - i 4 1j'k f ..e"s r pk ,S xA "w "� - - 1 f i �a j a w tv "`a� { 1 s - - `i t { - ri : # .$ Y _ } � i F 1 �.a a h i m� x fr r.'a K {N it q g3 _ T,5�,:­F.",�1,Z�'_;.T­,�,,.i�:,._�1_­­�M..,,.[.,r gZ,.,­.-,"'1._:1,7,..�_:t--,",51,I,,�_"i­1-.,��.,j.�_,,v,..;-,�z:i::��i.n;_.,L.,�',��,­-_.,",if�__._:.,--,i�,L:�!,,,.,,.1�_-.,�_�I j.,,�"]'j- -,­i'.:"��.,:Kn­�l-,I:i:�.f-­,�i­...:,Il��.-:-..,,,�:."."�...--I-.'I�.I lE��­-.',_l­,:.]1..-.­_�j..-�%.�i-�1,.:.-,,­.­'.I1,',,.I'1�.�_�,�j. _','.,:..1.:,I­�"._-,�Ii.�-_..:,:�1,�.l,_�-.....�'.��-,�n,....­%.,�.,��,��,,I I���l­�:.­E._,�i��-�.:�;..,,-�,-�,.,'��..-�I,,..­_��1.�,,.�-.�7.I-,-:.-iI.,I":�- ����,:.::,!"�'!.:,i� il._l-­.1 .LL.,�.�:.��.A"-,�.,11.��,_I F,,�.����!-�-.ji I.�,:,.,,,,Z:I;I-�-7�'I­�"I,!'—�__�.�-.,'�.�i-D!I.:, Cs y,,®UHuntingtan-,�,IJ 1­_�,�,-'1!._�-,,�-._"I1,_'0�*"���..,-,Re.�:I.�k.S-,:.��P,;-�-:.�if-I.,�fi-:��..l:�_.'�.-,q�'I--.I�,v�-�a,,_�,­..�.�7:.�.i���:. B a���­,.:,_�-Z�z���,.:,:-:�..z---,,,I!­�_ each z" `;III k';­,_!1,i.-�;4r-I:r-�-���,.I�.,-,.�­-��l;,,�-,­�' s 1..-I�"f:­,:::.,�i��_--.I I:�:-_.I'��:�:i�,t�.,,:k�Ia,��.,,,�,�,�._,!],-,­4,�-�1:;I:,, 1 .:-'.,,�.'�­'._­,A--%,'�.i,,v�.,�L�%�­-".I,*-:::1"�,_,,I-s;._�_;-.�_-,.._",,,I.�­��-�`l,,'L!'I'.���Z,P.,-,_f�­"..-.,.,---�-��.:�­.'-l��-�I"�,;I�r�,., a a 1 uu ,I,,,1"1��,,IZ�r�,'�_'���4,'1.-,l,;,-_-zi,f.�l-f;Z,;j.,'qI1,___.,l;��"2,.-_%,3"��-%,.,­.,�-�4',,,;,i",I,�"1�j,��-�l�,-.,n�-�-,,,!!��2".!,��,2,l,v,'­_-!,_z.1--�,.�,,'���M�-"f,-'t�,l'j_����,­g,,­,1,�-,�-I&'%J f.���g.4t�_V,-�1 i�i;I�,-,l:�p',TTTTT�N�_��,�11V�_,y,p�17�-.,-�,-._���f­-,--U�1,_�_,i,'��,�.,,,,��%,',,,� ,--�.,I:,"�`—,;'�K�;O,��-.�---�-,--�,,�:,�-�,L=�t-I,�"�:i.W,,�,R,-�,�,�;,�-,�,�I�41,,­r_��..i-,�,,w!.n:-k j_iI,.Tk�-���'�.j�i�­-:_��Zf,­,,��,_�,,-,�,,�-"_-�.:v�L fLl�A,�',�_:4zA,�.;�I"I,-,i­�f-g=.��P�-_�V.�,,%.L�­:,.���t4,­,�,�,,jpI rFF�,A--;�%;-:�T­��.,-L-I�-,"',�,­_'l�,.,-.;,,.:--,l_��.�I;,_-1--�.�--"�a-�,;-__.:;1���,�vI'-.,,���4,,nZ T�,,-;�_4�:Il",,.l..-�,p-,­�Z�j,�,,��f,�,rii-,7:--��L_�JlI,-_�I.�rrr-77�.-��Tw,,��.-�J","I:t z'-��,,,.,,,LS�­-.-,k,_��_'.-,5I"I I��i�l_,,J.�;-�,�!.�i�iI,--,]-,,,,,,,,:.4�,'._�,1"-��­�7�,�,z:,`__,,131�­­,.,u�_-��i.I_!.�,]_--�_.w!ii�,I�� -��"'��','-�gPll­,�i iq 1I:-1-��,,Z1b-�,-��_,�-.��,-.­��1�,',fI­-_�__-�-_���-,_._��.--j-tj�,.,�-,t-= j�.-��lt,�-_,,-��+��'.�_7��0�%�1�w,�_rl:�,t.�-,,1�,�,­.'M__����.-_�J.-.�,,I,�"­,?I:,"'I���-.,­1�--,'.f�,`t.-�l,xj�`�.�,,f-,-�-­�,�j,'-.4,1,,-�,:_?--1.%I,,;,__�-"­­-���.�,-f--gE;j,�..�;�,­&"_4�_,p-��l1-',.:-,a,�t1,.�-,,,-I t_,�"���_��,­_.�I,-t"�_��-!J.,�&­._,�,i-f.-���_.,,.,-,,1�- ­"1l.-I.�,1 i.,,'i��-��.`.`_`�xp,_:-'_�zF­,V,r�_.-1,.-:Z_'­.,'�,-,���-�..�---,If'9_�__.�,__�i��,-��r-;,I,,�,,.R��-'1,-;,�-,��_:��.,gi"�1:�';_2,�'.-�,L,h F�_,_�-,,`%�,?­1�_�_.Z"","�"I`-i l� �i.�'��l'­'._W l,��1,4,F l��,�"�!��Ii-I,��?,!,-a,r;�,T-,'�.,:��._1;��,4-,.,-,��,�w_4'_.__",-I'-�:-:�_.­.,-'��-�-_-�_f-;:,__�.,-,T,]_-.--:l.,�-'�,',�,J-,-`"�­_,�,��,1,,�,.�:�_._l,�r.1g:.,,��_����I�-�,_7!!:;:­���­�___z��._-.I5­i_.��,-4,-�­����-�f A,��,_-�-I"__..,��_.��i;­,.��"1�,",__��,,�i����-_�,�,�_<.�-,,'-9!���1,��'W��,-:,_-',_,1,_­E,:..� _2'-_,7�,j,-1,,,,���L-';,.�z`V--.�S.�,M­�,.-- ,_�-.-f-_�, X_,--�.�­-,���1--L.'__,�_r.-''B'3.I�'�,��,I-"t�""�"_�,�-::",-­;�-�-'��,,'-,,"v,_IV-1II_�_�7I,,�-7:_t',�-,.­"t:.',��,----I,,�­��,"�I1?�.�-�.:,��-P­���,-I_-­4.,-',t.��,���-�._`�L,!.­�f_y7,[.!�i�'-�­-:-'6��II I��_,-��,��_,S,!i-�;,,,,-,4�1,�"­i 1­�,-�:­,�-,-�,���I--��,_,F.,0­;",,,�,�­'-_'_l.',1"­--�-.�"."1-.,;.,Lw�,­-,,.-�I�;,-l-,'i��--,t�_.,�,',.�,,r,�,�'.;.�_,,�5,_­l4_.-.-,_-�;,_-i-��..-�:­.,,s­4.,-­��-1 i-,-1�`�._�:,-1,,�I�,T'_k,Q �f.;."__-f"IZ.,.��-�-,''-t._._.-..-,1� �..._",��f',��1.,._;:.���",�--�,�'�,��;�--,''.­�,1.,�,,,�:,1�J�_�,-,­�,e,�'I..":-_.,.;;��J�,,;­­,-':�_I.-,,,.,­,,_�;!,..7Z rj��'l�,�:;,�,1�I:_,�-_�-,-if,�,,��Z--L,I.._.,.����'a:­,'.,.,�_-I.�i-,:i�r:I,,-_L f,T;,,-,L_"5.--,,�:i.-�,��,­I�r� �.:,_,:-�;�:�,,I-,:�"_'iI'A:IL-.�,,1.,.-.._f,:,7��:".i::i-"��,..-.­i`,,,,T��.,_-_�:��'�-: -,v!:�1l,.'�.�19,,l�.r,.:_�.,,:,.,.,,Z.�_,I"-�­t%:�1,�-,. I,,,�;4i1,-.I�,:-;_._��1��i,,,�,­�1,-I�-�..2.-_,,;I.,,,.�-:;�­-�___.i�4i._1l,�:-�.I-­!,'_:j�--�-..:-,--'.��".,,,::7�..!"�,a1-.�-,,1_,.,'��'�z;,�I'-:.�_,'--�1:z1,�"T�-.,�,: ,._l,!1I,_II"I,-,�-.­`,C�1f�-_�,1.i'f�z.,V'j-�:,�:;11�.�,,V,,,.,-,I,,�l.-,.-,:',,,',�,r z��l,,�-__�",�'!�:s,,-';--,-��i ���,�-�,Y:2I._j-�T,z,��-,3__�.1-.-.�,­���,­�­�. �g,�­i--,i�,T.-l,I�,It­�1��­�,,,--,J��-­1±,-".:�:',�-."."-,�_�!��,,r,-_,-,:.i�-�.;.�-:�-,"��-,,I,,I�_�-i.ZI.I,ii�.�,'��.,,�...,,�,-,�I-,`11-�­-i,,.Z:-,,_.�L4 7,,-li�'1�I-2�,f,i�—�­-,,,,i�,�,,�1.l],:,r-�-_,1.;a��-1,,,.��,�',,,i",­,i�I!.,--,�_,%Ii,,�f�T,�A-,-,'-. ,,.­�,��7,�.I_-_,-�"��-l,­:�,"_-,4,.,ii!2_-,1,_---�I�:i�,�'-;ri�,��-�",�-�..;-.;�:,�..g-�,­,:L�,n�--.!I_�:.�i��o-,.---a.-i �-_M-_�.-,_,��­,�.L-",­*I_:,...--,,-.2 ff­�:�_1-f,I::-.l;_-�.�1�.!,'.�I�,,:�1i1::��,.--�_,a��I�"'�flZ.,-1.,,1�..�.w.1_���,-_­.-; .�.J,1l,,_,---,­.�­f�:,���,.,.'__�.;-1,'-,-���.--'.t��f-_i,z,,i1�',���.�_­7�:i_7.1_,,,,,I��1�F,,�-_I.-,,Z_�,��!.,-­'­,..�1f�,ji,.L:,;�",,,�,!��,­Ii�II.�:�'��iI-��,,�.�?�,'�,�,�.r:I__1�Z,��,�"��,3 i_�Z-,!-,�-,��,,,:-_��i_-�I�',-f �f%j3�­�;,­]��-.,e�f-�..�'..�,,-,,�.-,!�_-g;,�-�-�,�a�I�,L.,,--__"�-,:_1t!-'_:.,�,�.!,I-,��f�%,��4�-�,­�­',f:­l�,,Ii'�_�.,. -�"-.�.S_�--�I,�R,.­.".:­.,-l-:;,;,-�.�._,t­�I-4;-"_'"�i�"-i.7l_�,'�1��;I�. l_,,­'1-E"f�,1,_�_�,,�_­,�,f-i'�i";-,-!�I_.,,�,�-l-,.-,�.Z­l�2­`�-�,�1�..i��----E_.1�_:",-�.-,"-r�--­�_��-_..­1.i��,�.`�:�_:I.­J__�I-­-,1i",,��--,,���,,I,i.-',-mV1, ,.�:.;-,�:,�If�T_,-:''.]�_�,.�-c,;._-7,.I'"'*vI,:::f.,.I.:i­.-_i I.[,,­�.,-.-: l,-�'�I I�a.,,-,,I::�-,.I-I:­:,-�,�,,�� -:L��I�:,1u.I.--,­ -;�L:,�-�-:-�.,R��,­�-.-:..l..�-,-:,�-­-.:,..--_.,_'._1,I,-.-.�.1.�,.­,v�.­-�:�"!,.:�.I-Ii..._-;m--�-�­:--�.'._'_- _�I�_,,::-�i,-,.-;-��-­-­oT"�T",�,���i-llI­ j..,_,.-f'._:..:._�..--�,�-,�f'.1,-�,- .7-1.­.I­"�s;;�f.1:,,,_-,,ef_:�;D:­�.t��.I��_-,�i.,.-�...,-:l�I";E.. ,�4;,.I..­.,:�.!",�.1.:�.i.��,'i'..­�:,,.,-l....-e���.P_.:.I.�­r.�.�...-I1.,,�I I,.l::.:....­I�Il�I....-c�n:.T�'_�­­.-�:.�,�,_n...,;1�-l.:.: .l_�',,:Ii�.��I���uI�.i��I'.,,:.1.,fr I,­:i�.."...�r.�;-p�I._...­1�I;I.,. ,.�l,-.e1Ir1_6�,..:,'I�_.4I�.1­.�.�.,r�.,.-.��.�1.III�.­1.-.:.1,:_Ig-I,....,I�f,,.��!..a�,',--I,�,....,.l...41,-.-z�-",1.I-I-_�.""v..v���..,,,�1..:.1'�-;,,":-.�,�,,.,y1. ,-.,..�.._.fl�,�.�,1:"I-.1...!C�.�­-�,2i�::..�.-�,._�'1­iI,..;:..:;..,�.�l'�..,,I1:.I.�._,-::�....�'r�."...-LI.I,i-_-�1�.�'.r.:1--.-�"� .��.,�..::l�..��..�.;]--.­,-._��]!'�-4-,:�I_[�­..�1,i���.V���.II.�I_i._.iT_,�.::..;_1p'­.O....­:I-�i,..�.�1:I,"-;,.,I�""�i���.__:).�.�C"_�".II�.f T�_.,�­..�!,,.,.��",_l"I.:,�,--I_-f.�.'Iw_.�!.��:,!�%.�arr,�II:�.7,��r­i",�:_�­..--�r��.,',_�� ­,,_.,-_-..--�,..�7--,-.,.-��,I-:z-O.1.��.,_���_�_--,�-­.,��-i-4.�..�1��A__;�i% .-..,_.�-,-,:.�.".-__Z-.��.- ,f.:,l�.�!��...:�-_-%'j:I­­_�1��--::�e-�-__,I�_­-lI�1'.�R Ii_�"�,-,�j�5�-4oI-�:�i­"--�'--_,_;.--:,_-�_.,,-�,.�,.-:.--.�---.7!��:L::1!­�.1--��V:.�.i-4­.,�1!��-�-­.,._i,:-�j-,.F�'II:­.1:��p,�_I�'..�M�:,:;,;�.���,.-�,­�­­­.--�.�:.1,,...�,�!...�,.-�'-I�.I-.-,.��,.,I41�1!'��,�­-::--­-—,�,���;1:­,-lE--�q1.�I�".t-_T_--i.,i-"."..,.��1�,-I,,wI,,t- ��­,1-l:,.'���.-I1I,_-,�I.�­:,..,1:I­�"I,�-X­,..I.I.�_,'�.,1�,-..,'�­!..�:-.�1. 'n!.��1�:­.:�,�.�.I-.I.,-:;�.,_­,_..�. ��:5,.""[��-�;._�;_1I­-:��nT-,-�.,:�:I_:-­,.= ��,,�,I.�:,t-'�._�,_�'�,.�.,..,_.S-� lI,,:"l',-_,��-,,,I.1:"-I4.-.--.�]�._:llY,'�_��I,��. U,,f,�.1...` A_,,�.,­�i I m":�I�r :r.!,",:I;17.:I1 1-:I,�%-'.,,�I.!I_":.:f7­-:,,..-�I,­_�_I:,' ,-2E 1�'I�:�.��--q.��­1I,,.!,,ij.�_­.�-.,,_1��,-I,I.�I�,lT�­.�.,­._.!I::,,­-I_-Ii_.:-,!1l,�'f_ _�:�-_-,I.,,�1'�",� -��1:i,__,,:,���-1�f-I, :i-.�I'Il!-r-,T:,,�_7�_.II,1,�i,_-�-�,1V-����l1�, i�:.,­---�-..: I�IU 11_I,�I.�.,..:.-.I--_"�,-:�_..��1_- �.,;-..-_Ir"ri".: �,�.1.j.,�,i �­:.ip L­.�,I:-,�--�,,�':"­-.;I.:.-n.�1�..1'�-,.-.-II..6'.-�.��,--..-­.,,_'-,I._,�,-t,L�_.i.­..,:�..iI'lli,"�...,,I.,�-,­,I:,.i....,�I. 1.,�I. '-I.-..I.�-...�:'.,_�I.,I.�I�:, ��1�."-­-:�- ­� ­�..,t1-...��.1 1:�.-_-..�!.%.����1...:.,--'i"I.,:��,5-m.i I.�II1.n��_..­,,,;­�.: I. l�.­_I.�;,..�JI��;1"I::.i;. -...�IZ�"I�-�f.-1-��I:,�.�..�.-1.. ,--�f�����-I,:�..i�-!­,�.��]...:�I.::JIs.­..�.�:".:�.!t-,!�..��-ii,._,.,�I::1..-�.s%,I.���.,�­.,:. , -­�1���.4.." 1...� 1,�,....-,1.-,.-I. -� ..­-. - _I.,-,l�!.L �,I-_-��l� ,,,:�I::_.I:�I,,_,1,_::­,_ ��i_'�.j�,,�l;.,-�:I".�,�._�,�l.l.,,,,,�­I;I -:I.��--.j:.�.,.-.:��.�1_'._..I1.1,:,,,.��,�I:�,LIL 11�-�..�:�',,,,,_,ip.'.�-�.. , ..:�,­I.....F ,,II:::.,,.i­....w�.:LL.,,� ,��,.YYYYYY�,�I!�....�;..:_��i.�;��..,I_.::!..�1................�.1 I'll,,��:..:..1,,�:;tttttt:�7�.,,, ....,i_._:-- �.,,,1"r....�..::.,..z—_:'...,..... I.:: I:.I,I�-.... :�.P&�tR�I­.�-,- 't,RR_.���--...,­-.-I2oM-�M�_17,.P_ ��It�Mlt"�,,I-,4� 7- -11 ,-­" W.,"1;1� #. t iy c -,�, rc1",�r -.�-.�' ',P,-C r Y 'k ,�as ;; * +b ' 1 7 IW,= 4 1 2 a � 1 ""; i : $ y; a v a - ,<, t 5 - �� ,�2�Q,i�,_� '171 t;­--�-��_.�,`�_��;-:,�,­�:­.,-�-�L.:I.:._-,-�l�.�--�:,�l_1�_,����,�_'LI.--�� ­�I'�'_�__�__�1�-- ,1,_.�.� ,w��-� ,f,V1�!t"i-:�m� --,I�­_e'_,.IL;,1�,,.�­I,,,��".Z-m�­u��i:,-I I,�-.�_,­ - �,_.��I-�i } gS'$a,-�--_ y i3 r 1 1 7 ®t T '� - _ r y'is .fit I. !"�"1_��i;-_-­,­'u,%­�_-.S",:­­_,'­--�___,1.K,--��,-L;.-M,'`0.I�-4��_:_.,�--4-�.­�.._ ,,l_�-,.­_.,5'����­�fj�4 A� ..� r p ? U .,- %�;­r�'- _.-I,:�= vj ��: ,- - • * � $ 1 s r h -x - w�l 4 - sir r ti a .......1­A��IIIT-,:!jZ,Ip��-7, I�I�"�,,,�,Z,-'�,S�1111:IIi5:_�W­,,_-r­��--,_55�I1_,I!�5-�J,I...�l11111"""-,.r�­ -_V_--_,0,-,,-�-1,�...1,,l11,'_`A�M, _�t-_'.�,_,,,,,,,,,,2­�,tl---.-���-,-nI,�,l,�----���'M-_i.­i-_,1.--,-,.,�7�1--,qk,,�L,.-_-.K7 1�.ji;_1�?,�--,,.z.........:;4!!!:!:����,r-�...,­,'.�- q,i,1,-,j%:f-,,,,,,`--�..i1.,g­l l,',v-�T,--zp­-�-,,1�iI.r­I,l_­z"1_�j�'....1,�t',__-.,I_"1-�­. I�d,';1��M�,W­:i;;--za­I�-��_�­­:.,::.I��W-."�_M,,-,'a I 4 1'­i�l,­:­!­Ig,k,­,���-­aLu--__,_'�.,�,_�._I z--,,��"I-M l,=-;,�_7_­;���,___�!7.�7_�­-lII,�k.,�'I_I;�.I�-,�__.�,�­.:,`-��,PA I �,'�:1_;�'_',''_�--,.�:2!I­,�____r­-�.-,,,,-I,i_�1�,�.,_-,��_,II,t,--."Z��,�.�l-�0��,�_�_�_�1,�:-�,_�.;!ji�-��I Q-�-_-_-­_�l­_-_4?;I,,,1.l,,­��I­­1 N d,1_,I,,-�,,I E­�,,i.,t.tI�,_��K-_-i�,'�2 I"�,­����"I­M,I�-.�,�;j,l,r--I­_4�,__,�'l�'*I -I,,I�-fii,I�i_,�'.�'�'I�-,�I4vi_,:,K_�;r_I`I",EsI-t,w,�,,&�1���2I.�7�I�.iT;I-����t,I_"��,f,,"-,,,iT-_,..T,,l-"l--J,,-::f"zF�__t-­,f'�.,l�'-.�._m.,�,��.---1I����,,�l!:"-:-..r,I 4i1a-_��-r-� -`.�-"l,,j1__,l 11il-Il.::�*'.-_I 2,.f,--_,;!.',-��I7;Y,A�11­-��-M',�_-�-,�-'-,1 I___-1._��-,jp­�_, n `r '. - 1.' 'Y rS '' .. 1',:' may.. -+s. 'a{ < `3„� t" .G z: ! a 1"4m .s,�-..- f 5" i i ,�i4: 1. t .fi r -+.: - _ S a j _. �_ _ f a e r i 1 - k $Zvi '`- r s ?; ."' +� „ ,' k r ' y`� 1 Y - 4 __- - 1, _ Y iC4 }S C. .fin - fir,.+ Jl I ,{ - 7 �T r P,..; - v h $ { I �t x, lz " S u `} CjuI #2011110 3 � { r -. t �, 1 11 w i E T 1 - � L 1. ! yr f - - - - ate.€ a .: '. a �'s• s t r .l 1 4, �. N hJ t s { 7 ,r. g i.. +:yam - _ _ e. E 1 i-: C�l ' a 1 ,,,� ^�. Y - r+f - - _ :T- a 1 elf ,»,j 3 `)•.I - _ - i 3--9-..- 7 i - - x i zany 2013 it il -_��I-_777-7A�I,�,,.��!-';-_-�N�-��l 1".�i'--�����-or.-_',..---1�_1,_-..�,,-,l 4';;;":,�--,o m�'TTTT111,i1I,--f 1,��,'­-��gq"'Ifl�,-i-_I1k II..i....,;,�,li-&­M�4f--_1,,-,I�_2_,11 �0�._,,,"""i""""""!!,,,,,�f l l',lrM f�- .� �"� - _ x ,..",'-,��I-p l�-T 1"!.;�..�,-1�l�zl"...'i---�-1%-�-_,�-_�C..-,_I;.-�.T-�,I�.I--�!w�­,_Zn-,I,,I I�',�N.fJ,i,�-_',1F�Af11,%.;""".'-,�,-_-��,�Z.f-__.�­,���,-? yy� ' rd _ M,. r7 � G 1 -- - r - - - 3h - € ' aim h - £ y k -v�'`ed'4 n`'� "" .' 3-._ L & F, k C - " :w ;`ig'"w '` I j Item 9. - 19 L� x ,r.�.l _� u .- xB lis . _ _ _,_w, Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 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, Planning Aide (714) 374-5317 Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, Califonnia 93003 January 2013 Item 9. - 20 HB -116- This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 30% post-consumer content and chlorine-free virgin pulp. HB -117- Item 9. - 21 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR Table of Contents Page 8.0 Introduction to the Final EIR..........................................................................................................8-1 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR...................................................................................9-1 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR............................................................................10-1 City of Huntington Beach i Item 9. - 22 HB -118- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 Introduction to the Final EIR 8.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR This Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)with respect to the proposed Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance(the"proposed project"). Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a Final EIR contain the following: a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft; b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons,organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process;and e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document,in conjunction with the February 2012 Draft EIR,which is bound separately, constitute the Final EIR for the Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance.As described in detail in Chapter 2.0,Project Description, of the Draft EIR,the proposed project would prohibit distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within Huntington Beach,and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags at all stores that meet at least one of the criteria listed below. 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. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063,the City prepared an Initial Study which concluded that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and an EIR would be required.The City circulated a Notice of Preparation(NOP) of a Draft EIR for the proposed project to the State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on November 17,2011 for a 32-day review period and a public scoping meeting was held December 7,2011.Comments received on the NOP and comments received at the public scoping meetingwere both considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was made available to various public agencies,citizen groups,and interested individuals for a 45-day public review period from February 9, 2012 through March 26,2012. The Draft EIR was circulated to state agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Copies of a Notice of Availability(NOA) of the Draft EIR were also sent to interested State and local government agencies,and other interested parties.Copies of the Draft EIR were available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department,City Clerk's Office,Huntington Beach Central Library,and via the internet at www.huntiWonbeachca.gov. Comment letters on the Draft EIR with specific responses are presented in Chapter 9.0, Responses to Comments On the Draft EIR,of this Final EIR Any revisions to the Draft EIR based on these comments are contained in Chapter 10.0, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR in revision mode text(i.e., deletions are shown with strikethreugh and additions are shown with underline). City of Huntington Beach 8-1 HB -119- Item 9. - 23 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 9.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that the lead agency evaluate public comments on environmental issues included in a Draft EIR and prepare written responses to those comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b),"[t]he written responses shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised(e.g.,revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's positions are at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted." The CEQA Guidelines call for responses that contain a"good faith,reasoned analysis"with statements supported by factual information. Corrections or additional text discussed in the responses to comments are also shown in the text of the Final EIR's Section 10.0, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR,in str-rlcether(for deleted text) and underline(for added text) format. The City of Huntington Beach received three comment letters on the Draft EIR for the Single- Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. The comment letters that the City received are listed below. The letters and responses follow. Commenter Pale 1. Dave Singleton,Program Analyst,Native American Heritage Commission(NA) 9-2 2. Colin Kelly,Staff Attorney,Orange County Coastkeeper (OCC) 9-8 3. Sue Gordon,Chairman,Huntington Beach Environmental Board(HBEB) 9-13 City of Huntington Beach 9-1 Item 9. - 24 HB -120- Letter 1 (NA) STATE OF CALIFORNIA EdmundG Brown Jr Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION h 915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 / (916)653-6251 Fax(916)657-5390 Web Site yeutiv.na?&,� .�Uv ds_nahc@pacbetl.net February 14, 2012 Mr. Hayden Beckman, Planning Aide City ®f Huntington Beach Planning & Building ®apartment-_ .: 2000 Main Street, 3`d Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: SCH#2011111053 CEQA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the"Huntinton Beach Single Use Carry-out Bag Ordinance Project;" located in the City of Long Beach: Los Angeles County, California 'i Dear Mr. Beckman: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the State of California `Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code§21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3"d 604).The court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and special expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native American resources, impacted by proposed projects including archaeological, places of religious significance to Native Americans and burial sites. The NAHC wishes to comment on the proposed project. This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code NA-1 §5097.9. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA— CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a `significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) perthe CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ...objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect(APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. No NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was conducted for a project of this type; however, consultation with tribes to gain their opinion and support for the proposed project is advisable_ Eady consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area(e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the list of Native American contacts, 9-2 HB -121- Item 9. - 25 to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Special reference is made to the Tribal Consultation requirements of the California 2006 Senate Bill 1059: enabling legislation to the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), mandates consultation with Native American tribes (both federally recognized and non federally recognized) where electrically transmission lines are proposed. This is codified in the California Public Resources Code, Chapter4.3 and §25330 to Division 15. Furthermore, pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines§15370(a)to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, if the project is under federal jurisdiction, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S_C 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175(coordination &consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research"the cultural landscape that might include the`area of potential effect.' NA-1 Confidentiality of"historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies,project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. 9-3 Item 9. - 26 HB -122- NA-1 If you have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 653-6251. inc ely, �eS et Program A y' Cc: S t Clearinghouse Attachment: Native American Contact List 9-4 HB -123- Item 9. - 27 Native American Contacts Orange County February 14, 2012 Ti'At Society/Inter-Tribal Council of Pimu Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman-Manisar Anthony Rivera, Chairman 3098 Mace Avenue, Aapt. D Gabrielino 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno Costa Mesa, , CA 92626 San Juan Capistrang CA 92675-2674 calvitre@ yahoo.com arivera @ j uaneno.com (714) 504-2468 Cell (949) 488-3484 (949) 488-3294 - FAX (530) 354-5876 - cell Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources Private Address Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 tattnlauu@gmail.com gtongva@verizon.net 310-570-6567 562-761-6417 -voice 562-761-6417-fax Gabrieieno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno San Gabriel , CA 91778 Santa Ana CA 92799 GTTribalcouncil@)aol.com alfredgcruz @ sbcglobal.net (626) 286-1632 714-998-0721 (626) 286-1758 - Home 714-998-0721 - FAX (626) 286-1262 -FAX 714-321-1944- cell Gabrielino Tongva Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Sam Dunlap, Chairperson Adolph 'Bud' Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson P.O. Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Los Angeles , CA 90086 Santa Ana , CA 92799 samdunlap@ earthlink.net bssepul@yahoo.net 714-838-3270 (909) 262-9351 - cell 714-914-1812 - CELL bsepul@yahoo.net This list is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve arty person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Huntington Beach Single Use Carry-Out Bag Ordinance Project;located in the City of Huntington Beach;Orange County,California. SCH#2011111053;CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). 9-5 Item 9. - 28 HB -124- Native American Contacts Orange County February 14, 2012 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson Joyce Perry; Representing Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 Irvine f CA 92612 so nia.johnston @ sbcgio bal. 949-293-8522 (714) 323-8312 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Gabriel ino-Tongva Tribe Anita Espinoza Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Anaheim , CA 92807 Los Angeles , CA 90067 Gabrielino neta777@sbcglobal.net Icandelariai @gabrielinoTribe.org (714) 779-8832 626-676-1184- cell (310) 587-0170 - FAX 760-904-6533-home United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP) Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Rebecca Robles Andrew Salas, Chairperson 119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno P.O. Box 393 Gabiielino San Clemente CA 92672 Covina CA 91723 rebroblesl @gmail.com (626) 926-4131 (949) 573-3138 gabrieienoindians@yahoo. corn Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Bernie Acuna 1875 Century Pk East#1500 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90067 (619) 294-6660-work (310) 428-5690 - cell (310) 587-0170 - FAX bacunal Ca)gabrieinotribe.org This list is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. is list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed tuntington Beach Single Use Carry-Out Bag Ordinance Project;located in the City of Huntington Beach;Orange County,California. SCH#2011111053;CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). 9-6 HB -125- Item 9. - 29 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 1 (NA) COMMENTER: Dave Singleton,Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission(NA) DATE: February 14,2012 Response NA-1 The commenter states that the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)is the"Trustee Agency"for the protection of Native American cultural resources and that consultation with tribes is advisable in order to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once the project is underway. As described in the Initial Study(see Appendix A), the proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any development or alterations of physical sites or structures. The project would not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource,directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature,nor disturb any human remains. Therefore,no impacts related to any Native American cultural resources would occur and consultation with tribes is not warranted for the proposed Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach 9-7 Item 9. - 30 HB -126- X' ate.= a V 1 Letter 2 (OCC) O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y COASTKEEP"ER. 3151 Airway Avenue,SuiteF-110 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Phone 714-850-1965 Fax 714-850-1592 March 21 2012 www.Coastkeeper.org Sent.via U.S.Postal.Service Mr. Hayden Beckman,Planning Aide City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Beach Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Draft EIR No. 11-002 Dear Mr.Beckman. Orange County Coastkeeper ("Coastkeeper'� is an environmental organization with the mission to preserve, protect and restore the watersheds and coastal environment of Orange County. As strong supporters of environmental quality and public health, we are writing to express our support for the Huntington Beach Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Draft EIR No. 11-002 ("DEIR"). As we will discuss in detail below, the DEIR accurately characterizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Huntington Beach Draft Ordinance ("Draft Ordinance") as being beneficial for the environment. Consequently,we urge the City of Huntington Beach City Council ("Council") to approve the DEIR and adopt the Proposed Ordinance. I. The Draft Ordinance Will Have an Overall Beneficial Environmental Impact The DEIR correctly describes the Draft Ordinance as having no significant adverse environmental impacts.' The DEIR discusses four types of potential impacts of the Draft Ordinance_ Air Quality, OCC- Biological Resources,Greenhouse Has Emissions and Hydrology/Water Quality. 1 A.. Air Quality The DEIR correctly concludes that the Draft Ordinance would have beneficial impacts on air quality2 without any significant adverse impacts.'The DEIR discusses two potential ways that the Draft Ordinance could adversely impact air quality. The first way is by increasing the use of paper single use bags, the - —manufacture of which-has a higieTerflag tit pollutant emission-Pate tliari plastic.single use-bags-- ------ However, as the DEIR notes, the Draft Ordinance would still have an overall beneficial impact on air quality because the number of plastic bags used would be greatly reduced 5 In addition, all paper bag manufacturing facilities would still be subject to emissions limitations by the South Coast Air Quality 1 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Draft EIR,ES-4—ES-6. 2 Id.at 4.1-9. 3 Id at4.1-12,4-1A4. 4 Id at 4.1-9. 5 Id at 4.1-9. 9-8 HB -127- Item 9. - 31 Management District ("SCAQMD")'Furthermore, the use of paper bags is expected to gradually decrease as consumers switch to reusable bags.7 The second way the DEIR stated the Draft Ordinance could potentially have an adverse impact on air quality is through, "an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers."' However,the DEIR correctly states that this will not have a significant adverse impact on air quality because the amount of additional truck trips would be negligible, amounting to only an extra half a truck trip per day.' Because of the net increase in truck trips would be so small, emissions from those trips would be well within the limits set by SCAQMD.10 B. Biological Resources The DEIR correctly concludes that the Draft Ordinance would have only beneficial impacts on biological resources.11 Plastic bags pose a serious threat to aquatic life. Because they are so much lighter than paper bags, they are easily transported by wind to rivers, lakes, streams and the Pacific Ocean. Once they enter OCC-1 the aquatic environment, they can kill fish, birds, mammals and other organisms by causing entanglement or by poisoning them when ingested A common way plastic bags are ingested is by large marine predators mistaking them for smaller prey animals and swallowing them. This problem is compounded by the fact that plastic bags are not bio-degradable. This means that once plastic bags enter the natural environment, they are there to stay. The Draft Ordinance's switch from plastic bags to reusable and paper bags is a major step toward correcting the problem of plastic bag pollution. Because paper and reusable bags are much heavier than plastic bags,they are much less likely to be blown by wind into waterways. Furthermore,if they do end up in waterways,paper bags, along with certain types of reusable bags, such as cotton, are biodegradable, and therefore will not persist in the environment as a threat to aquatic life for nearly as long as plastic bags. In addition, paper bags are much less likely to be mistaken for prey animals by predators than are plastic bags. C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The DEIR correctly concludes that the Draft Ordinance would have no significant adverse impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions As explained above in our discussion of air quality, the Draft Ordinance could cause a slight increase in emissions. However, as the DEIR points out, the small increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions is expected to be well within acceptable limits." Furthermore, the Draft Ordinance would be consistent with California laws which establish strategies for greenhouse gas reduction.14 G Id.at 4.1-12. 7 Id.at 4.1-10. S Id at 4.1-12. 9 Id.at 4.1-13. 10 Id at 4.1-14. 11 Id.at 4.2-17. 12 Id at 4.3-10,4.3-14. 13 Id at ES-5. 14 Id at 4.3-14. 9 Item 9. - 32 HB -128- D. Hydrology /Water Quality The DEIR correctly concludes that the Draft Ordinance would have beneficial impacts on hydrology/water quality" without any significant adverse impacts.' While the DEIR discusses the potential impact on water quality of increased use of paper and reusable bags, it correctly notes that this OCC-1 would represent a beneficial impact because the paper bag and reusable bag use would be replacing plastic bag use."As we discussed above in our discussion of biological resources, paper bags and some reusable bags pose a much smaller risk to aquatic organisms because of their weight, biodegradability and substantially smaller likelihood of being mistaken for prey by predators. These qualities make them a much smaller pollution risk for waterbodies than plastic bags.In addition,any increase in manufacturing of paper _ bags does not pose a significant to water quality because all manufacturing facilities are subject to the requirements of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System C NPDES") permits under the Clean Water Act" II.The Draft Ordinance Will Have an Overall Beneficial Economic Impact for Huntington Beach In addition to protecting environmental quality, the Draft Ordinance would have a beneficial impact on Huntington Beach's economy. Like many southern California cities, a significant portion of Huntington Beach's economy is dependent upon tourism. As a premiere coastal destination, Huntington Beach's OCC-2. tourism industry is dependent on the quality of its beaches. Through its reduction of plastic bag litter,the Draft Ordinance would improve the aesthetic quality of Huntington Beach's beaches.This,in turn,would attract more beachgoers,pumping additional money into Huntington Beach's economy through tourism. The reduction in plastic bag litter could also lower beach cleanup costs for Huntington Beach, freeing up government funds. The 2011-2012 Budget for Huntington Beach allots $3.2 million for Beach Operations,79 the division of Community Services which is responsible for cleaning the city's beaches. In OCC-3 addition, the budget sets aside $143,000 for maintenance of the Beach Operations Fleet2° The substantial reduction in litter that is expected to result from this ban could reduce the number of man-hours required for the Beach Operations division to keep the city's beaches clean. Similarly, the reduction in litter could result in less wear and tear on Beach Operations vehicles, reducing the amount of money necessary for vehicle maintenance. The money saved by these reductions in costs could be used to make improvements to the city's beaches or purchase new fuel-efficient vehicles and other equipment for the Beach Operations division. Conclusion Coastkeeper urges the Council to approve the DEIR and adopt the Draft Ordinance. Too often, environmental and economic health are portrayed as diametrically opposed. Here, they are in perfect harmony. Despite the misleading claims made by industry groups like the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, OCC-4 who are devoted-only to l%eif ou bottom line, laws like Huntington-BeacYi's I7Yaft-Ordnance are iri the - -- - - " best interests of the cities that adopt them. That is why 41 cities and counties throughout California are now covered by similar ordinances. With its beneficial effects on both environmental quality and 15 Id at 4.4-6. 16 Id.at 4.4-7,4.4-11. 17 Id.at ,S-S. 18 33 U.S.C.§11251 et seq. (1972). 19 City of Huntington Beach Adopted Budget FY 2011/2012,Community Services,p.8. zD Id at 304. HB -129- Item 9. - 33 Huntington Beach's economy, the Draft Ordinance represents a chance for Huntington Beach to join the growing number of California jurisdictions that are benefiting economically and environmentally from OCC, plastic bag bans. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Coastkeeper at (714) 850-1965. Sincerely, Colin Kelly - - ----- Staff Attorney — --- ------ ---- ------- --- --------- Orange County Coastkeeper i I 941 Item 9. - 34 HB -130- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the draft EIR Letter 2 (0CC) COMMENTER: Colin Kelly,Staff Attorney,Orange County Coastkeeper(OCC) DATE: March 23,2012 Response OCC-1 The commenter states that the DEIR correctly describes the Draft Ordinance as having no significant adverse environmental impacts and reviews the conclusions of the DEIR pertaining to Air Quality,Biological Resources,Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Hydrology/Water Quality. The commenter also expresses support for the DEIR and urges the City Council to certify the DEIR and adopt the Proposed Ordinance. The agreement with the DEIR findings and support for the proposed Ordinance are noted and will be considered by City decision makers as they review the project. Response OCC-2 The commenter suggests that the proposed Ordinance would have a beneficial impact on Huntington Beach's economy because the reduction in bag litter would improve the aesthetics of Huntington Beach's beaches, thus attracting more tourism. This opinion is noted and will be considered by City decision makers as they review the project. In accordance with CEQA, the DEIR focuses on the project's environmental impacts rather than economic impacts;however,it is anticipated that reducing litter would generally have benefits with respect to attracting tourism to the City. Response OCC-3 The commenter suggests that the reduction in plastic bag litter that would occur as a result of the proposed Ordinance could also lower beach cleanup costs for Huntington Beach,freeing up government funds. In addition,the commenter suggests that the money saved by these reductions in costs could be used to make improvements to the City's beaches or purchase new fuel-efficient vehicles and other equipment for the Beach Operations division. These suggestions are noted. Although cost savings have not been quantified,it is anticipated that a reduction in plastic bag litter would generally reduce beach cleanup costs. Response OCC-4 The commenter urges the City Council to approve the DEIR and adopt the Draft Ordinance since the proposed Ordinance would have beneficial effects on both environmental quality and Huntington Beach's economy. The support for the proposed Ordinance is noted. City of Huntington Beach 9-12 HB -131_ Item 9. - 35 Letter 3 (HBEB) { CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD March 23,2012 Hayden Beckman City of Huntington Beach Department of€Manning and Building 2000. Main St Huntington Beach, CA M48 Subject: Draft EIR No. 2011-002 Dear Mr. Beckman: At the March 3, 2012 Huntington Beach Environmental Board meeting, the members reviewed draft EIR No. 2011-002. The Board offers the following comments for your consideration. General, 1. We appreciate that the consultants addressed all of the-comments on the Environmental HBEB-1 Checklist Form for Environmental Assessment No. 2011-002 that we provided in our letter to you dated December 15, 2011. 2. We are also pleased with the EIR's conclusion that all Ordinance impacts—air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology, and biological resources-are either beneficial impacts HBEB-2 or impacts that require no mitigation (class Ill or class IV impacts). 3. We note that the EIR contains a number of extremely conservative assumptions. For instance, it states that the ordinance would:only"incrementally reduce the amount of litter.' White we do not agree with many of these conservative assumptions,we understand that their inclusion decreases litigation exposure and thus we are not requesting changes to these statements. HBEB-3 Old data. We note that certain portions of the EIR rely on old data. For instance, the EIR cites the 2007 5%plastic bag recycling rate for California instead of the 2009 3% rate currently cited on the CalR e e website. Because correcting these types of data errors would not have a significant impact on the conclusions reached in the EIR, we are not suggesting that you remedy the errors in this EIR_We note the errors for future reference. Incomplete List of Sag Ban.Locations: The document lists of counties and cities in California that have adopted or are considering adapting plastic bag bans are incomplete. Add references to the Orange County region and the cities of Dana Point, Laguna Beach, HBEB-4 Carpenteria, Ojai, San Rafael, and Santa Barbara to all of the fallowing sections.Section 1.1 on page 1-1, paragraph 2,• Section 4.1,on page 4.1-14 at c. Cumulative Impacts, Section 4.2 on page 4.2-19 at c. Cumulative Impacts, Section 4.4 on page 4.4-11 at c. Cumulative Impacts; Section 4.3 on page 4..3-14 at c. Cumulative Impacts_ 9-13 Item 9. - 36 HB -132- Environmental Board Comments Draft EIR No. 201.1-002 March 28, 2012 Page 2 Add reference to the cities of Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Carpenteria, Ojai,San Rafael, and HBEB-4 Santa Barbara to Table 3-1 on page 3-2. Confusing Language; 1. Unclear that numbers refer to annual bag use Insert"annually"after"used" in Section 4.1 on page 4.1-10,first full paragraph: "Thus, for this analysis it is assumed that 5,100,917 plastic bags would be used in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance.." Insert"annually"after"used" in Section 4.4 on page 4.4-10, second full paragraph_ `Even though the volume of a single paper carryout bag (20.48 liters) is generally equal to HBEB-5 approximately 150% of the volume of a plastic bag (14 litersl),for this analysis it is conservatively assumed that 45,93%254 plastic bags (45% of those currently used)would be replaced by the same number of paper bags." Insert"annually" after"manufactured"in Section 4.4 on page 4.4-10;third full paragraph' "1Nith implementation of the proposed Ordinance, approArnately 52 million carryout bags(including single-use paper, single-use plastic and reusable bags)would be manufactured for use in Huntington Beach..." Insert`annually" after"reusable)"in Section 6.0 on page 6-8, second full sentence: "in total,. Alternative 3 would result in 10,023,299 fewer bags (including single-use plastic,single-use paper, and reusable)than the proposed Ordinance." 2. Incorrectly implies that actual plastic bags remain in use Section 4.1 on page 4.1-10, first full paragraph and Section 63 on page 6-7, second full paragraph- "...it.is assumed that 5%of existing single-use plastic bags would remain in use_.." is confusing since the actual plastic bags don't remain in use. HBEB-6 In both instances, replace with, 'it is assumed that the number of single-use plastic bags used annually in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags currently used annually in Huntington Beach....' 3. Incorrectly implies that Ordinance reduces use of bags Section 4.4, second sentence of first full paragraph: "The Ordinance is anticipated to,..reduce the use of all types of bags(including plastic; single-use paper, and reusable)by 49%"is confusing since the ordinance doesn't reduce the use of bags—it reduces the number of bags HBEB-7 . manufactured for use. It is also inconsistent with language used elsewhere in the EIR. Replace with"the Ordinance is anticipated to...reduce the number of all types of bags (including plastic, single-use paper, and reusable)manufactured for use in Huntington Beach by 49%". 9-14 HB -133- Item 9. - 37 Environmental Board Comments Draft EIR No. 2011 DO2 March 23, 2012 Inconsistencies. 1. Groceries versus items Replace the word`groceries"with the word"items'in Section 4.1 on page 4.1-11: "This analysis HBEB-8 assumes that as a result of the proposed Ordinance the existing total volurne of groceries currently carried in approximately 102.2 million single-use plastic carryout bags would becarried Within approximately 52 million single-use plastic, reusable and single-use paper bags'is inconsistent with terminology used elsewhere in the EIR_ 2. Increase versus decrease of greenhouse gas emissions Delete"and associated greenhouse gas emissions"from the second-sentence of Section 4.3 C. on page 4.3-14: "...such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number HBEB-9 of bags manufactured and associated greenhouse gas emissions" is inconsistent with the EIR conclusion stated elsewhere in the EiR that the ordinances would result in a net increase of greenhouse gas emissions, albeit with less than significant impacts. Drafting Errors in Appendix C: 1. Section 1.5.90.010: Reletter-there are two definitions labeled ab" 2. Section 5-90.020: Delete "b. This prohibition applies to bags provided for the purpose of carrying away goods from the point of sale and does not apply to produce bags or:product bags,"This is.redundant—it's built into the definition of-plastic carryout bag"in Section &90.010 d. 3. Section 5.90.440 b:: Reference to subsection "A" should read subsection "a.' 4. Section 5.90.040 e-: Insert`and' after"provided"in third line and delete comma after HBEB-10 "provided". 5. Section 5.90.040 f., References to'provision of false information" and'such store"are unclear: 'The provision of false information, including incomplete records or documents, to the City shall be a violation of this Section, and such store shall be subject to the fines set forth in Section 5.90.080." Replace entire phrase .with Any store that fails to maintain complete records or documents, maintains false records, or otherwise fails to comply with this Section shall be in violation of this Section, and such store shall be subject to the fines set forth in Section 5,90.080. fi. Section 5.90.080 c. (1): Replace dollar amount fine schedule with fine schedule that adjusts with inflation since dollar value changes over time. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment_ on this EIR. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, Sue Gordon Chairman, Huntington Beach Environmental Board 9-15 Item 9. - 38 HB -134- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 3 (HBEB) COMMENTER: Sue Gordon,Chairman,Huntington Beach Environmental Board(HBEB) DATE: March 23,2012 Response HBEB-1 The commenter expresses appreciation that the DEIR addresses the comments provided by HBEB during the NOP comment period(letter dated December 15,2012). Comment is noted. Response HBEB-2 The commenter is pleased that the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance analyzed in the DEIR(including air quality,biological resources,greenhouse gas emissions and hydrology/water quality)are either beneficial impacts or impacts that require no mitigation (less than significant). The comment is consistent with the findings of the DEIR. Response HBEB-3 The commenter notes that the DEIR utilizes data for plastic bag recycling rates from 2007 and states that more updated data on the"CalRecyle'website is available for use. However,the commenter does not suggest that the EIR be updated.Rather, the commenter simply requests that the more updated data be utilized for future reference. In regard to plastic bag recycling rates,as stated on page 2-4 of the DEIR,"Approximately 5% of single-use plastic bags in California are recycled(US EPA,2005;Green Cities California MEA, 2010;and Boustead,2007)." As the commenter notes,CalRecycle also provides data on its website,which states that"The 2009 statewide recycling rate for regulated plastic carryout bags was calculated by dividing the total amount of regulated bags collected for recycling(1,520 tons)by the total amount of regulated bags purchased(52,765 tons).The resulting recycling rate is about 3 percent" (http•//www calrec, cl�gov/Plastics/AtStore/AnnualRate/2009Rate.htm#Rate). While the 3% recycling rate suggested by the commenter would be anoter valid rate to use in the DEIR analysis, the DEIR utilized the higher recycling rate of 5% in order to provide a conservative estimate of impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance. Use of the 3% rate suggested by the commenter in place of the 5% rate used in the DEIR would not change any of the DEIR conclusions. City of Huntington Beach 8-16 HB -135- Item 9. - 39 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response HBEB-4 The commenter suggests that the EIR update the cumulative projects list to include other California cities that are considering adopting plastic bag bans. Cities include Dana Point, Laguna Beach,Carpinteria,Ojai,San Rafael,and Santa Barbara. Although the cities listed above did not have adopted ordinances prior to the release of the NOP for the proposed Ordinance(November 17,2011),the cumulative projects list was updated in the Final EIR to include the cities listed above. The additional six cities included as part of the cumulative projects list are reflected in the Final EIR's Section 10.0, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR,in str-&eeut and underline and they relate to the following pages of the DEIR where cumulative projects and cumulative impacts are discussed: • Page 1-1: Discussion of other agencies that have adopted or are considering single-use bag ordinances • Pages 3-4 and 3-5: Table 3-1 • Page 4.1-14: Cumulative impacts related to Air Quality • Pages 4 2-18 and 4.2-19: Cumulative impacts related to Biological Resources • Page 4.3-14: Cumulative impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Page 4.4-11: Cumulative impacts related to Hydrology/Water Quality Inclusion of the six additional jurisdictions listed above in the cumulative projects list does not affect the overall cumulative impacts identified in the DEIR. Response HBEB-5 The commenter suggests several minor edits in order to clarify numbers referring to annual bag use. The following shows the changes(in strikeout and underline) reflected in the Final EIR's Section 10.0, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR,based on the commenter's suggestions: • Page 4.1-10:"Thus,for this analysis it is assumed that 5,109,917 plastic bags would be used annually in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance." • Page 4.4-10:"Even though the volume of a single paper carryout bag(20.48 liters)is generally equal to approximately 150% of the volume of a plastic bag(14liters'),for this analysis it is conservatively assumed that 45,989,254 plastic bags(45% of those currently used annuall )would be replaced by the same number of paper bags." • Page 4.4-10:"With implementation of the proposed Ordinance,approximately 52 million carryout bags (including single-use paper, single-use plastic, and reusable bags) would be manufactured annually for use in Huntington Beach-a decrease of 49% compared to existing conditions." • Page 6-8: "In total,Alternative 3 would result in 10,023,299 fewer bags(including single- use plastic, single-use paper, and reusable) annually than the proposed Ordinance." 'The Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Las Angeles County Final Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2009111104). Adopted by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors on November 16,2010. City of Huntington Beach 9-17 Item 9. - 40 HB -136- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The edits listed above do not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations contained in sections 4.1,Air Quality,4.4,Hydrology and Water Quality) or 6.0,Alternatives. Response HBEB-6 The commenter suggests minor edits in order to clarify that after implementation of the proposed Ordinance the number of single-use plastic bags used annually in Huntington Beach would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags currently used annually in Huntington Beach. The following shows the changes(in strikeout and underline)reflected in the Final EIR's Section 10.0, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR,based on the commenter's suggestion: • Page 4.1-10:"As shown therein, it is assumed that the number of single-use plastic bags used arulually in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags used arunually in Huntington Beach 5% of exisfings „a ^ ;^'^ plas bags •44 ^^since the Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags(e.g.,restaurants) and these retailers would continue to distribute plastic bags after the Ordinance is implemented." • Page 6-7: "It is assumed that the number of single-use plastic bags used annuaIly in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags used annually in Huntington Beach 54- of existing single use plastiE bags wotAd remain in use similar to the proposed Ordinance,since the alternative would not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags(e.g. restaurants)." The above changes do not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations in sections 4.1,Air Quality or 6.0,Alternatives. Response HBEB-7 The commenter suggests minor edits in order to clarify that the proposed Ordinance would reduce the number of bags manufactured for use rather than"reducing the use of bags." Contrary to the commenter's suggested edits,bag use in Huntington Beach would be altered as a result of the proposed Ordinance as the number of plastic bags used by customers at retailers in Huntington Beach would be reduced by approximately 95%. In addition,the proposed Ordinance would indirectly reduce the number of bags manufactured for use within Huntington Beach. However,it should be noted,that no bag manufacturers currently exist within Huntington Beach. The following shows the changes (in strikeout and underline reflected in the Final EIR's Section 10.0,Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR,based on the comment received: • Page 4.4-8:"The Ordinance is anticipated to reduce single-use plastic bags in Huntington Beach by 95% and reduce the use of all types of bags(including plastic, City of Huntington Beach 9-1 8 HB -137- Item 9. - 41 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR single-use paper,and reusable by 49%. In addition,although there are no bag manufacturing facilities located within HuntinZon Beach,the proposed Ordinance is anticipated to indirectly reduce the number of bags manufactured that would have been used within Huntington Beach." The above change does not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality. Response HBEB-8 The commenter suggests replacement of the word"groceries"with"items" in Section 4.1 on page 4.1-11. The following shows the changes(in strikeout and underline reflected in the Final EIR based on the commenter's suggestion: • Page 4.1-11:"This is a conservative estimate as a reusable bag,as required by the Ordinance,must have the capability of being used 125 times(see Appendix C for complete Draft Ordinance). Nevertheless,for this analysis,in order to replace the volume of groceries items contained in the 51,099,171 single-use plastic bags that would be removed as a result of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance,an increase of approximately 982,676 reusable bags per year would be purchased by customers at retail stores. Based on the estimate of 982,676 reusable bags,each Huntington Beach resident (191,677 in 2011)would purchase around five reusable bags per year. This analysis assumes that as a result of the proposed Ordinance the existing total volume of groceries items currently carried in approximately 102.2 million single-use plastic carryout bags would be carried within approximately 52 million single-use plastic,reusable and single-use paper bags." The above change does not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations in Section 4.1,Air Quality. Response HBEB-9 The commenter suggests minor edits in order to clarify that although carryout bag ordinances would result in a net increase of greenhouse gas emissions,the impacts would be less than sigiuficant. The following shows the changes(in strikeout and underline reflected in the Final EIR based on the commenter's suggestion: Page 4.3-14:"Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance, such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured-an4 The above change does not affect the DEIR analysis or cumulative impact determinations related to greenhouse gas emissions contained in Section 4.3,Greenliouse Gas Emissions. City of Huntington Beach 9-19 Item 9. - 42 HB -138- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 9.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response HBEB-10 The commenter suggests edits related to the"Draft Ordinance" contained in Appendix C of the DEIR. This comment does not suggest corrections or edits to the environmental analysis contained in the D EIR,and therefore no changes to the EIR analysis are warranted. The suggested corrections/edits to the Draft Ordinance contained in Appendix C of the DEIR will be evaluated and forwarded to the CiVs decision makers. mow City of Huntington Beach MW 9-20 HB -139- Item 9. - 43 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR 10.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT' EIR 10.1 Introduction This chapter presents minor changes to the Final EIR since the publication of the Draft EIR and revisions that have been made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received from organizations and individuals on the document.Staff-initiated changes include minor corrections and clarification to the text to correct typographical errors. None of the changes affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR as described for each change which is summarized and shown below. 10.2 Changes to the Final EIR and Environmental Analysis 10.2.1 A minor revision to the cumulative project list was suggested by a commenter(see Conunent HBEB-3 in Section 9.0,Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR). The changes made to the DEIR as they relate to the addition of six cities included as part of the cumulative projects list are reflected below in sft4keeut and underline: • Page 1-1: Discussion of other agencies that have adopted or are considering single-use bag ordinances: o "A number of cities and counties have considered or passed similar ordinances within their respective jurisdictions. These include,but are not limited to: the City of San Francisco,the City of Seattle, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Berkeley, the City of San Jose, the City of Manhattan Beach, the City of Palo Alto, Marin County, the City of Malibu, the City of Santa Monica,Santa Clara County, the City of Sunnyvale,aF�d-the City of Long Beach, the City of Dana Point, the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Carpinteria,the City of Ojai, the City of San Rafael,and the City of Santa Barbara." • Pages 3-4 and 3-5:Table 3-1: o "As shown in Table 3-1,1-723 carryout bag ordinances have been adopted or are proposed or pending(not including the proposed Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance) throughout California. City of Huntington Beach FW 10-1 Item 9. - 44 HB -140- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City of Berkeley This ordinance would prohibit retail product On hold stores from making plastic bags available at checkout stands, and would require a mandatory charge of 25 cents on each paper checkout bag. Paper checkout bags would be required to have minimum post consumer recycled content City of Calabasas This ordinance bans the issuance of plastic Adopted February 2011 carryout bags and imposes a ten(10)cent Effective July 2011 charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at regulated stores. City of Fairfax This ordinance allows all stores, shops, Adopted August 2007 eating places,food vendors and retail food After legal challenge, vendors,to provide only recyclable paper adopted by voter initiative or reusable bags as checkout bags to November 2008 customer. City of Long Beach This ordinance bans plastic carryout bags Ordinance adopted and at all supermarkets and other grocery Addendum to the County of stores, pharmacies,drug stores, Los Angeles Final EIR convenience stores,food marts,and certified May 2011 farmers markets and would place a ten Effective August 2011 (10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags by an affected store,as defined. The ordinance would also require a store to provide or make available to a customer only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags. City of Los Angeles The Los Angeles City Council voted to ban Pending plastic carryout bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by July 2010— but only if the state fails to impose a 25- cent fee on every shopper who requests the m. City of Malibu This ordinance bans the use of non- Adopted May 2008 compostable and compostable plastic Effective November 2009 shopping bags for point-of-sale distribution. City of Manhattan Beach This ordinance bans the distribution of Adopted July 2008 plastic bags at the point-of-sale for all retail On hold pending lawsuit establishments in Manhattan Beach. City of Oakland This ordinance bans the use of plastic Adopted July 2007 bags within the City. In April 2008, a judge sided with a challenge to the ordinance filed by an industry group City of Palo Alto This ordinance bans large grocery stores in Adopted March 2009 Palo Alto from distributing single-use Effective September 2009 plastic check out bags. Only reusable bags(preferred)or paper bags can be distributed. Single-use plastic bags can NNW City of Huntington Beach 10-2 xB -141- Item 9. - 45 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status still be used in produce and meat departments. City of San Francisco Retail stores governed by the ordinance Adopted April 2007 can only provide the following types of bags: a. compostable plastic b. recyclable paper c. reusable bag of any material City of San Jose This ordinance prohibits the distribution of Adopted January 2011 single-use carryout paper and plastic bags Effective January 2012 at the point of sale(i.e., check-out)for all commercial retail businesses in San Jose except restaurants. An exception is made for"green"paper bags containing at least 40 percent recycled content,accompanied by a charge of 10 cents to the customer, with the charge retained by the retailer. City of Santa Monica This ordinance: (1)prohibits retail Adopted January 2011 establishments in Santa Monica from Effective September 2011 providing"single-use plastic carryout bags" to customers at the point of sale; (2) prohibits the free distribution of paper carryout bags by grocery stores, convenience stores, mini-marts, liquor stores and pharmacies;and(3)requires stores that make paper carryout bags available to sell recycled paper carryout bags to customers for not less than ten cents per bag. City of Sunnyvale This ordinance would prohibit specified Adopted December 2011 retail establishments Sunnyvale from Effective June 2012 providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale,and would create a mandatory 10 cent($0.10) charge for each paper bag distributed by these stores. County of Alameda This ordinance would prohibit the Pending environmental distribution of single-use carryout paper review under CEQA and plastic bags at the point of sale (i.e., check-out)for all commercial retail businesses in Alameda County. Exception would be made for"green"paper bags containing a specified minimum percentage of recycled content,which can only be provided to customers for a nominal charge to cover the cost to the business of providing the bags. County of Los Angeles This ordinance would ban the issuance of Adopted November 2010 plastic carryout bags and impose a ten (10) Effective July 2011 cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all supermarkets GiW of Huntington Beach 10-3 Item 9. - 46 HB -142- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status and other grocery stores,pharmacies,drug stores, convenience stores,and foodmarts, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The ordinance would require a store to provide or make available to a customer only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags. The ordinance would also encourage a store to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. County of Marin This ordinance prohibits the distribution of Adopted January 2011 plastic carryout bags and would charge at Effective January 2012 least$0.05 for a recycled paper bag. County of Santa Clara This ordinance allows affected retail Adopted April 2011 establishments to distribute either a'green' Effective January 2012 paper bag or a reusable bag. Reusable bags may be given away or sold and are initially defined(until January 2013)as bags made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles;or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mils thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple use. 'Green'paper bags may be sold to customers fora minimum charge of$0.15 and are defined as paper bags that are 100% recyclable and are made from 100% recycled material. City of Dana Point The City of Dana Point adopted a ban on Adopted on March 6.2012. single-use plastic bags from all retail stores Effective in larger stores within city limits. Aril 1 2013 and all other stores October 1 2013. City of Laguna Beach The Laguna Beach City Council Adopted February 2012. unanimously adopted a plastic bag ban in Effective January 1. 2013. all retail stores. Grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience/liquor stores must include a 10 cent minimum price requirement on paper bags distributed. City of Carpinteria Carpinteria adopted the first double bag Adopted March 2012. ban in the state on March 12,2012. Effective July 2012. Starting in July 2012,large retailers as specified are prohibited from distributing single-use paper and plastic bags.Starting in April 2013,plastic bags are banned in all other retail stores including restaurants. City of Ojai An ordinance that bans plastic shopping Adopted February 2012. bags and levy a 10-cent fee on paper bags Effective July 2012. was first approved Feb. 28, 2012.As of July 2012,the ordinance is effective. City of Huntington Beach 10-4 HB -143- Item 9. - 47 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City of San Rafael City.currently developing a proposed Still in draft stage. ordinance,though at this time an ordinance has not yet been proposed or adopted. City of Santa Barbara On March 13 2102 the City Council voted Still in draft stage. to start work on a single-use bag ordinance in coordination with member agencies of the Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment(BEACON).The draft ordinance,would likely ban plastic bags and place a 10 cent price requirement on paper bags in all retail stores with some exemptions.A draft ordinance has not yet been released. Source: Californians Against Waste,http.,IAvww.cawrecycles.orpli'ssues/plastic campaign/plastic bagsAocal, accessed July 2011; City of San Jose, City of Palo Alto, City of Berkeley, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, City of Malibu, City of Manhattan Beach, City of San Francisco,Marin County, City of Santa Monica, City of Calabasas,Santa Clara County, City of Long Beach Homepages,December 2011; City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board Comment Letter—March 23 2012, • Page 4.1-14:Cumulative impacts related to Air Quality: o "Nine-Si*other agencies in South Coast Air Basin region(County of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach,City of Manhattan Beach,City of Calabasas,City of Santa Monica,City of Malibu,and the City of Los Angeles, the Ci of Dana Point, and the Cie of Laguna Beach)have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. However,based on the incremental increase in air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance(increase of 1/4 pound per day or less of each criteria pollutant), the other ordinances are not expected to generate a cumulative increase in emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds or adversely affect regional air quality. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts would not be significant." ® Pages 4.2-18 and 4.2-19: Cumulative impacts related to Biological Resources: o "At least nine—,ix-other agencies in Los Angeles region(County of Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Calabasas, an4 Santa Monica,Dana Point,and Laguna Beach)have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance, these other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally reduce the number of plastic bags entering the environment,including the Pacific Ocean,as litter.These other ordinances would be expected to have similar beneficial effects.Therefore,there would be no cumulative impacts related to biological resources." City of Huntington Beach 10-5 Item 9. - 48 HB -1.44- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR • Page 4.3-14:Cumulative impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: o "At least nine si*other agencies in Los Angeles region(County of Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach,Los Angeles, Malibu,Manhattan Beach,Calabasas, aF4-Santa Monica, Dana Point,and Laguna Beach)have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. However,based on the incremental increase in per capita emissions, the other ordinances are not expected to generate a cumulative increase in GHG emissions. For these reasons,cumulative significant impacts associated with implementation of carryout bag ordinances throughout the state are not anticipated." • Page 4.4-11: Cumulative impacts related to Hydrology/Water Quality: o "At least nine siE-other agencies in southern California region(County of Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles,Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Calabasas,and Santa Monica, Dana Point,and Laguna Beach)have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. These ordinances would be expected to result in similar reductions in the amount of litter entering storm drains,local creeks or watersheds, thereby improving water quality. Inclusion of the six additional jurisdictions listed above in the cumulative projects list does not affect the overall cumulative impacts identified in the DEIR. 10.2.2 A comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR(see Comment HBEB-5 in Section 9.0,Responses to Coninients on the Draft EIR) suggested minor edits to clarify that bag use estimates are"annual" estimates.The following shows the changes (in strikeout and underline)based on the commenter's suggestions: • Page 4.1-10: o "Thus,for this analysis it is assumed that 5,109,917 plastic bags would be used annually m Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance." • Page 4.4-10: o "Even though the volume of a single paper carryout bag(20.48 liters) is generally equal to approximately 150% of the volume of a plastic bag(14 liters'),for this analysis it is conservatively assumed that 45,989,254 plastic bags(45% of those currently used annuall would be replaced by the same number of paper bags." The Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout B ags in Los Angeles County Final Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2009111104). Adopted by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors on November 16,2010. Ew City of Huntington Beach or- 10-6 HB -145- Item 9. - 49 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR • Page 4.4-10: o "With implementation of the proposed Ordinance,approximately 52 million carryout bags(including single-use paper, single-use plastic,and reusable bags) would be manufactured annually for use in Huntington Beach- a decrease of 49% compared to existing conditions." • Page 6-8: o "In total,Alternative 3 would result in 10,023,299 fewer bags(including single- use plastic, single-use paper,and reusable)annually than the proposed Ordinance." The edits listed above do not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations contained in sections 4.1,Air Quality,4.4,Hydrology and Water Quality) or 6.0,Alternatives. 10.2.3 A comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR(see Comment HBEB-6 in Section 9.0,Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR) suggested minor edits to clarify that after implementation of the proposed Ordinance the number of single-use plastic bags used annually in Huntington Beach would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags currently used annually in Huntington Beach. The following shows the changes(in strikeou and underline) based on the commenter's suggestions: • Page 4.1-10: o "As shown therein,it is assumed that the number of single-use plastic bags used annually in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags used annually in Huntington Beach since the Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags (e.g., restaurants) and these retailers would continue to distribute plastic bags after the Ordinance is implemented." • Page 6-7. o "It is assumed that the number of single-use plastic bags used annually in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance would be equal to 5% of the total number of plastic carry out bags used annually in Huntington Beach , similar to the proposed Ordinance,since the alternative would not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags(e.g.restaurants)." The above changes do not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations in sections 4.1,Air Quality or 6.0,Alternatives. City of Huntington Beach 10-7 Item 9. - 50 HB -I46- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR 10.2.4 A comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR(see Comment HBEB-7 in Section 9.0,Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR)suggested minor edits to clarify that the proposed Ordinance would reduce the number of bags manufactured. The following shows the changes(in strikeout and underline based on the comment received: • Page 4.4-8:"The Ordinance is anticipated to reduce single-use plastic bags in Huntington Beach by 95% and reduce the use of all types of bags(including plastic, single-use paper, and reusable by 49%. In addition,although there are no bay manufacturing_facilities located within Huntington Beach the proposed Ordinance is anticipated to indirectly reduce the number of bags manufactured that would have been used within Huntington Beach." The above change does not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality. 10.2.5 A comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR(see Comment HBEB-8 in Section 9.0,Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR)suggested replacement of the word "groceries"with"items" in Section 4.1 on page 4.1-11. The following shows the changes (in strikeei t and underline)based on the commenter's suggestion: ® Page 4.1-11: o "This is a conservative estimate as a reusable bag,as required by the Ordinance, must have the capability of being used 125 times (see Appendix C for complete Draft Ordinance). Nevertheless,for this analysis,in order to replace the volume of gre items contained in the 51,099,171 single-use plastic bags that would be removed as a result of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance,an increase of approximately 982,676 reusable bags per year would be purchased by customers at retail stores. Based on the estimate of 982,676 reusable bags,each Huntington Beach resident(191,677 in 2011)would purchase around five reusable bags per year. This analysis assumes that as a result of the proposed Ordinance the existing total volume of grocei4es items currently carried in approximately 102.2 million single-use plastic carryout bags would be carried within approximately 52 million single-use plastic,reusable and single-use paper bags." The above change does not affect the DEIR analysis or impact determinations in Section 4.1,Air Quality. 10.2.6 A comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR(see Comment HBEB-9 in Section 9.0,Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR)suggested minor edits in order to clarify that although carryout bag ordinances would result in a net increase of greenhouse gas NEW City of Huntington Beach 10-8 HB -147- Item 9. - 51 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 10.0 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR emissions, the impacts would be less than significant.The following shows the changes(in c'keemat and underline)based on the commenter's suggestion: ® Page 4.3-14: o "Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance, such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured-ate asseEiated greenhouse Now City of Huntington Beach FW 10-9 Item 9. - 52 HB -148- Y- �.'��-§_-,.��:�..-�_,M..L,;"���1�s",.�,_1'N_�-��-'I-�:_:-''­t-',_,­.,�,--;,."-._'_�".���,�_�� M _ - —­: - '�--''I��,''_.'_r­­N''i'.­'"�_,'_1-W.�����;�r� _--�,I,,"��.-�,4�v;1'$.1��Ml.-�R�.:­-�_�_���.­;�',-�_',;��'�­.6,,N:_IM-­�,'.�d�_��ft_.;,..�1-__,_�'lAl'l,L_,,'_'I�-­"1_-_1 M'�'---�"'.d�,Zr�2_L-�T.",:C�� ��-,l-___�-�-_-!'�.!k-­,!�,;I!1,-�g,�t_,_�-';,J ZF.��,'­__'-_��.'--,"!"".�-_O,_�1"U1'7§­ �_"A�,,I'..�FrK"'��_"=-��;'.M"�-­__�_��-,��-"�_"�"_M!'_,�Nr-­_",,�::,��-','�..�';.i��'-,'==-_-I i�',-L'L''&�1.�"."VA,'���2._A L�t­�.'4���,.��i­*"--�'_�-__�rH.:�1��I-�,I_;..,,�m 11;M'_-'1,E­w-,"'�'L,�1'';�,.4'r3_��y,.:�_.11l,�e�g� �g1T L_1�7r-W��-.1-Mg���U","--.,.�� '1-.�-',MM�1'._n N,II-,",T-_,'I�i-t:�%',�,_--�'�M,--,W�--1__�-a,-��'''­'1�_-'-01.�'_",..,I"1.-­�,I�_A4�lr�'IIL:8'r­$ �._­A-1"I._.,__A­�9-"'�`-2.'�rI,�,'q�f j�-�-"�,�",".�I�"1�'11,,V'�,Z�n_�I[�,��JR�'T, -Wg�,­_�4"'ll-�'.�"��,L'�"b,'I-",�_r"��1��^';,ft�­N._l.'�I,'iL-�',..,"-.l:��.1-e,.�_4'-­m,,.­.", ;-WN,��_'"'_,,'�-,�q-��..L­--­-".f�--'�."'A'"'i"..,,Ar­'I'_�'-�-','­�_,,.�":-..-�-&11I,'',_­t-i i�-A-�1,�-'�'Z'i=1i�, p­,",-""-�-.'�-,,ji'U,.'_"" '', �4,�,.t,..�i�",r'i,"�'jP;'1iL�.-'t`.-,4��"��',1�7,,"�_A,!%"-1�i_�--:"Nl._-I,��7,i,­Udz��'�--�',' '.-:�-�,I�_�,.zJ.i,._��.:.?j,jl"-,..2��';-.­­..1'�!�_�L_L-11;--'�,Lll.*:.-:�",',;",_W'--.T��;!-,�._q"I�"��,1z�,.'""-:"l..-'�Aa-1,-_"��ft"u'-�'.i,L-.w-.�1'�:7-'.�_�,!'I.�_v"j.'_­--�--�4�',­�_---;,���-.�"IQ�V1!�"�'. �,'"���,_�'1-.�­�_--I�"..:-,�"i�1_,1�-.;"1"-�;1;I�,,.�-�:�,�-..''� �:-'.'"��'j!'.!'!�­..:�...:�"��,�,­.''�"14;).-_n­,��i,�1.i-1r.�::j_,�,-:�,�V'�.:"'''�l 1 1 7��-����I 9,.�,­'��7,r,.1 4.1-i''-��,�j[,""-L.R yi,­�';I:�-1_1f��.��U�---_.:.�,�-,.:­.1�—.K.�_,,1_T'''r,�''�1."c1�r�M q;_'__ F�.;�jF,:­..J__,�`_-�n,,­!'`''1,�.��..�1:�-..-',,4!',,1'i�.:_.­�.It�.-­;.,�'1�r]�-'-�L-...�''r��'4".;'.2:.-_-­��-.���]'._'-,�.;-�'�L�'.��-;�..,-..-�..-',,"i'��,_�- ��4:'_!'�L--.,'",-j C�,'._�A,��i'.4�'�'��'�I,-_.-;''1..­;­f-_­.�:..I":".��.i,�"--­.�''.�."'_5��.����,L"I::.,;-,.:�-;.--..W�I':i1."���­�4��­'�.::��i�.,'��l!:�.'..­._''-.:.:.1;���L 1l',.��" .....,1'�j".;4 7-`�.�"')��j.__.-���"..��:ZL�"'--i,'­;.r­�.,��''4,_'-"I.T_­_�.r1:"1,�1.���,�,""I­­'.�.�1'­'�".,I..--L.�"1'-­!I_:i---"���M 1�._'�.":%,-_'g��Q`-.'�.1"5',":'.'--r­.�"�-1,!;1.��:1,��,,,'­i'��'.��j':7ji_t�1-A'"i�.-w,,�-,4'.,,-I��­'�-!;."-,'4.11�"�,­�--;;.��a 1�,i LL,'r.�.-",'-''Y±,1,I-�,­:",;',i��_:.9­";,.L­k 5"ir��p�.1q"L I-�_�.'�,,.:'-7�"r1J­..­­���,'�'.--k�,�fi ��.....:��I ��--. ,� _ _ "1.�-,--...-L�':.;'"­�'.I'W�,�..':-��-:-.,."-:.: _1i.�1,�:-�_.1��_1��_��-�%��1,,,,��,�.'!"­--�,.�'".,-_,I-,I�LL_��a-.'-:'_,-�­1,M,...�­'�-!'�],-'�1�::i�5..,,1;,!�If,..LI'�T-,'-",,,�_-�..:.,'_'�I!1.,'­,,'�.�L.;I�_-Z�­,-.-'1.�--_�dL­_�5 '.1'.I1.'.'-��-­_�"��'�,:.1-.i.'1�I" ­L i.�,-_1,':L�-__�...-9',_��L,.�",0�,­-"*I,L�-i,'1�,_".';'I��isi--1�-.�'.',1�1';:��_-w,"."�7­.­-1,.�'�.�_­&V'1'__,","'Z��,..��"-".S,.�-���;l 1",.­��,""�m­I.,J3-Q,I,1.:.� i;_-l,.I-".L"­�;�4���"1�.':�)��_�k,_'-,',.�i_:-�Ii­�._�I'�"-­,�,,i-�,'��".'­''­'-i,i..L­'1I"-�_!,!:l"'i.­�a,-,"1'�'_._�,�.--�-�,-�_­L','�'�,'1,5i.,.--"!l�'­''�::..--,--'�,;'-z._-..._L,f'i,.;�,"_I�',--_,,,:,.:, ­­',,.ILLi"_�­.:_;�''_�:�­,,i-'.-".__iI_,:L.1&,--I.'.�-!-.':,��-:.,'I,V"fi�."L:" :_­,�-F.'"".--_,�u-�_",. .�11�-'"_­-.is"�,,'�_­�...1;-,.-I--";1'�-,,-..."w 1- -L_1,'.,:,,,6 1;,,'�,�A,_'"_'���',,-­. .­-�,M"­,��-.''I.5_�,,�.IU�-_,:1"�"1u�­.,.­)4_--i1­'u%�'"'4�,L:.-.�,,'��',x�,*���.'­"z,i'­--,1­"�_��:.-1,_,�,.,r.�Z�.,:.'..-.�����',��-.-I5--"-��;�-�';:._E.j'"1",�.'.L!"11,,1,Z���,�.'­I,,,�j-�i"��:'_,�..�',,4_.,I1V-'1-.r-'i' L 1...'�'_n,�_1�-z'..I l�I�.­�.I��.!`��'�.-,:_:�.t,�.Y­'L!_,�H.1,7,�-,!_-,"_�`-.."��,.-:�-',"',�___�i,1c7---',--- �"""�,j'�,',I,�''_1",,i'�rs�:'..L"�,��1�U..'.�r"�",�'----,.'-,'1,I I'"-;,,,�,'L�*, ..��%'�-!.�-,,'"L��O1-'­­1":'.�S:,�I,���'.'.,­.��,�_�.2I,'-.',.-l-�­-�.�:.I"'-�"�,­��I';Z A��.�_l,L�.1��_t-­i'�l,­,.1�,.','r,''j,,�_'.,';':t,1!:_--,�"",'-._j,,­,,,�1�I.­,�_.'."",'_-L:'','_I,'1;��--.1­"�:"':;.�����"�.,-'."1,�.--­-:''.,-t�,,'','�-�',':;.,.1.".��-,-,I-'�­.L I..��L r�I,--'-��.'�;.i.-�'.'FF,'_�­_-,_-­_;�_-�­Iz­�<-%�,-_-...'��1,,.�,:�_W"��'_-;.�.,.�-�',��'��"4��.�'_L���1-,,''_­'_�,-.- _7,__ ��..f��;�-��'--'.-�'-'�__--'" ,;,�� -'L..'�.�.rr_-_.,:.�`--......�..'�.�.��:'�;�I��.�.,I:.::L','�.I."I—�_',i'�:j���:�-�­1.'..�.� �­-*,1''��:...,-*-1:--::,,,r';­�_.--.:,--I�,.L-� ,,.�.-­..�-.-��i.7�-..-',ii'_--.-�i.:­L-",:i;.C�,:.L--��i­:���'i'.!�I:'�....,'.::P�.'-­;.:--­i-..,-.�.,:�I�.L`��,��"�.�:�-.N_L:z.,7!4,�-'�:..!,-'-�:,'-%,.._--�1�.r'ii.z.'-� _.�4"�.'__c�,-I_�.._�-::..L._�,'..!�-.�I';-'.:"'n�',,�­::::�..LM 4'—,m­_,-_��,1-_�-?I:�..t­-E!!!!L:�,�-'Li..-1-c"1';;.-,"-�,:�'I..__Q:"''-�_'.:��",,,iI a j1 L­:L-i,- _-�,,",�- ._­.���.­���"-L:L,­I,'�.:t.�'-�,!l�I_'��,'w,...."_:-1,_,,.:'-'­ �LL.,'�,-,.L,�­i.,,-­.1,���� -1:_:,:�"t�1"'-.,Z�-�.y I���f,L�-I--I��L:_-��'-,�LL.L"�I�."­:--'�,_L"_.'LL I�­��i�':,.J�""z,--z._.Z .L.LL'.­."'--.,.,���L�i.��'��_�L_'­.'.j IT,,-�,.-p'-A'�­�L't�--�z�­R1.­:.L'_�,��-.."..:!---�i_-:,-L�L"-'4",.,—�;II1�:I.:-II"".�:'�',-i L.'-.LL,'L�­,'-.'..:,.,�,�.i-,-��I.'.--�,L-:�"-.:�II­�-"�'L.r11.­"_.L'L.L'_�',�''::_�U.�,�-,.R"._I":.-.;,11.r:.,­_-��-'L"­�­_1'�­,��'".-��-..,.'.'LL:,'���­�-..".,_-I�..1..i--,-,.�..­."�,��­1I­�L�'4.�::._I�M��-_.-:,,,''­'',_i".I��.I.I L i"_� �--�2�.�-,'_-I'..-,.Iz1....7r,­,'�_�'.�-':...�c�I �:.��I.,�--...ti.�,,�'I_�­_L...1�::��I.-_."�'� ,..L_ML'�'_1,m 51-"�,L!1.`'__-.�i�.-:.-1:�__"�,v_�-L:,-'':.'�.';1.:L 71",I�,I.'�_...,.4E.­I-.."::I'".,...--1.1..f:_5 M._Z_.-_1­:_��:,�i',:LI Q.',�.�,"�--':'!�,1­'_-,..._�-�-..:-..,'-,iI­:..-__�-'A��:,I.��.',��-_..;'_.-�'�,�,_�:'L_"-"::�X,���'�.t�-,"�.'...'-1'��-.:,;-_-i I:--4 _.4r­:.­-�,;-'.:k.­1i;-._�-�,��'"1'i 5.fI-.....;��_":.:"4_-:,�i�- �..­. .,�.1,��.L.��_�q_-­��_'.',,....�,���..,,I.,.:�t�­7q,—�'"_.".-"��...�.�O'-I��:''_,2."�_-L-­.:�..�-��.,...I�,'­,-.' -�..M.,�_. - �-­;'�"4h',-.;�%�,­­;.`1.."IL..c.'-:�.L-,C_��-.9�:'i:���,..:­'�1:L..,,'_"­..3_7:.I::.�-''.�.���­�­_,-­;.:�=�_-.zC.�.,,I-i_�_';"..'�­_--­.L�_-'.I':":r,!�"-��"_­_�',�_:"".,-.� 1�TR-�,�.:::t.-"_'­L_"­:,-�1,L"..'i."',...".-­,4'��.-'!I g'., I LI--1-�.:.iv,.�.I4-�.��..L..:L..­_-_-'.&-'..F.�j'�'4,_.�.�T"�'",_-1��:i_i-__!kLi".�L.r.�"1. .�'T�_X,,- ,1.."�- �.L,1'..-.'.�:F_t��"'I'o:.L.'��"�-.'--'..�--7;�'!.L-­�­;�'"�I �:.1�K;_,..­:'7�-L-._�1IIAv.'.r,,,;.I--'. .i-:ZIM-),.-k LZI:1�r"A,._:.1�t-.�...�".-�'.I I'_�.....__"...._-!­-L-L'�...7,. �.:.-'�-�:p-­.-.-"�.:-���..".A a-.I.L'.-.­�v.�,� ."7�-";:,-,_I..-"_','!__"1-�i-:.�.:::�2�...'-T'';7:,."-_-!!I'41 L­,�AIp:�7r..,'_--,__���_�:.��.,-:-�L'1-_-..,�,',:��L----_ .---.13�'_-� .-..LI,'���_,��.'_'-:��i1-�:.-­]�;�_W..:,;.i_,-�':;_.._-�-._'..�.�',l'__. .9��__,��_�,�"-,._�'1';_.:r-���%�'-_�_�j 1.�.- � ��."".%.'L;�-�,�,--..-:_�L�-,.*.�j�'�:._�-_­ -n,,�.�r-4...�:-,_.',,1.­-I�.',.��. ��.i-1;''II I1��'�I,-.,�p,�_-��',...;',1'�,.:::L- .;�II.-.'.-',"�1,i,_.. �.'1 I.-�..,L::,,.1,-�I�-,,"'i.'�"_..1 I-,_'_�.- ":"!!,.­:I.�-"(,.�.:-:-,II...,-�"".�..,--­�-"­_.11.I��.�I....'"�,_"­-',�f,-"o,�-.:'..-.: --7��i'.-_''�..1'I-��:.; q���,�4t'.:_..""z.-_.,,::_L'i*­z'I�.',"1 0,����e,,,:,,:-,'4�-.:%,,�_7",::,--J''I:..'�,1.L,�'."�1� ',�'_-L'L.LL 1'-?''.��.�-'_".�-,L!.'L ...�-.�,_'I:,1 �N I-!'�,.-�1_.nV_�4�_-l'NM��N1O�AL I1-a�_�-�"­7-1kX*-'�._ ,..,k-1 --!i­',��_Y�,'�__:-��..IO..I-_-��",,-',_�- .,p 6'�-_-1'!­�_M-­"_-',M, I11_-__,:�'_i 1';"����II-- I."A��"��'i'.'`,.?i�"Ir�-_1�-,,-',L'1Q l,_"_-;,, __i-z i:'-,�"�'i l"'--_�1-­,...��I-�..A T"_��,_�,-,,.!�!'--` ',:--3I�_''I,,�-p_'��I,'"-_K �I.:.I-�1'�,"-I--T1�-,;-. I:�_-��i-:� mk"�N­.....1�"�� ��rr��-'I­,'.��--�-� "I�-�--T' ,II���'�2-��,�,;_�',11,._��-',..-­­�'_"��L,,­�--1..-- :-_r_.j��t�'_I-:L��,7�V--- ......,,-_.,.i;�-'"�_ ,'.�.--L--' _-._,--����.i"`,1-'-7­.'" ,1_._;:-�I',r,',_�_.:"�i1_­_'�KO'3� �,,i"--'"..:__t i.-:��'"-','� _ ' _ s - .'_jZ"�'7,�;­._'.�'-N-�-ff"�.r--_�.-. .­�":-�-�_­F!�,..�­�L�Vl"",i,��.!6�_!1".o- i:.- ,.'-; �'-t.%1:�;,��--­,��:.,::, �'.1.�,',.'' �1'�� - - - - ,.�r:-�%�-'�_�,, - �..i-:':_----l�-."�.'�'.M�I1� -�­-i';��__'�'7;l'�',"i-_­''_,_,­-�p.�.�:-­`'"',:, .,�.,-�4'��­:; :.�',�---l_-1,�,-._,'"g,'�-5*' 'M." '1'':'�5f-'.�;_�'.Ii�--�_��'_-�.''_�­"1,-T�'.zffl',.i,.. �!�,-'-tj'_-"I-W-,�_��,q-"�15 .",-,1_pk,' "..n,_:nl.�_�,'_�� ,--',,"' 'A.­_7�PI_-�l,�,-kI-�L,,��--- i,g;."­�.'.I��".- ��.i__"'­'"�.�,_-�'M _'Oj�,I-i.�-"I' %".,�-I­�--'­_I"��-I-�._j '_'Lz1',�_,..:�;�__.-.-���.4--�L-__'zL,-t ,1"."­-,Q'_.�...'�dI"_ _1,"­,,_Ii.�,.;�"I��,LLt�_-i ,,�_-.�''".::Li_ __.i 1,-.'iZW:ii,. ­ .�j..�...�1I"-:_."Z',wI.,,,�,i--'"'�':.,_�����S--.,'"..-!.,'___'.1I a,i.,:.i­",.:�­!'"i!.,­ �.,�._''­-i-&-M Z_ �.:Z�1I_�,;:,:..��__.,'�i i".:z _.''�"z�_�-_.,-""'�,,_-­'-_��__'-. ,'�.�:-o_'.."i'.,_-_,-_4._�"t�l.-._ ',�.-Lk..i.'.:�`_t­­j.-��.._.-- �_I�-'l�"L,-- 1,­-­ ��_.T�' 1:1 r; .-'.,;--i_L--I��i��-.5 I-.:�.�._�: ---7E�_i'1. '�L-.-__'��,,-..�,.." -$.-.,._.___-L_ �_I i��.-_ _��.-­_- L_;_L.- "­'.--,-i�L_'M;,.I"..�_-,".:—i,­,I�I-_� ��..-I�`-��­."-,_�,--.� .Z'_�-: ;.-!,'..I�::," _�.L-­��;"Ii-'7,_�_ 1 _-�--­ -�L,-- I �q--1:,",.i;.-�z�'_­` i..t�_��,�m 7"p,,'-�","..'­'j','��!'.�_ ,i�-'A --'1_���.:.L-- ��7-.,_- .. �.I­�­- ­:...:� ,'�-._"I"�.!��;��-.�.'_L�ii' �,�-'_;_ __ .-��,I� "�­,',.�..I�-.�.!-.�:,'�.-"- :-I .'' - ray r� i t� ' -'�1'-"�l�;."e:_�.�--_t�"'1'q'1�t,'R(­,','"%"Rt-��I"1--1'R­'�,,,N4''',G�g .-...­�_--�­_,�=r�-,FFF��'I vYi­'.1;���---',­-1-,.�;.A'��"�4;_�MT'X_-�Z�w�,"5W 1'-'­�qg .3I��_'I_',4,,,:,,.._­�,-n.,-.--���g-­�'=-1-,z-�--lK---t�_�_­,�,�,l,�.�� a. Ij I 2 N*M__-'�1X��__-"'l"__-_.g�--1-_���1���i:�:',: ._.,,,g-.i,�1!."�';�"f%��'LI.-'-T­_If.-,.''V-_2�_'..j��-_�6�_-I:1`'--�M"�_�­.L�­_'�.,!­g*­,-"'­".-@­',-i1�.�'.."i.;­R__­7 ZW-�%._'_._�A,:-!�'.-%"��­l,i��.,­i--,%"_1�,"'�'."­'"4i i,�I�-='-;k-%­'!.-�O v�_-7.�l'-"l'"._"."­!"�"W.--­'-'-'7t_--__:_'l_'--�.'.jI""_.��-�-;j.NfI�,'_�_-I d t� -_ c a: .dY� I y - C - 3 .4 I r l��Z • ,� V '4 %�'���,�_"iSx""-�-�I;I�i�4­''.'�'1:'-;�q�-_�_-:,.,'"''Ij-u,t..".''_4�1I'lN'�'VAW'�,i,'­_.,i---]_��;,�-1'­'g J"Ji,'1­,­R-_0;:,­�--'��'�,-,­�IT�"J-'�',�[.N�'11��M_�­7"4"I�n'''"k_L,9I AI,d"q'.M,.­i.-',�,,.'�I����F�������'j��'p���- 5 f-',�."IIv,O,�.­n-_L�L"'�";I'-'*j..�.lI".!_?�;;=­_1'i,"��1��P F."-1tD;�p_2'-�_X_--�,'%--f,''-.��"�I�..@_11',-,.'�..��,,'-�-''_"ii'�­,-=-14­'fMV':L-,­�'WT�5'"""1 1-7-�!!-S.��-��,'l,tJ5,'i-....4­���N'9W-I��-�M,1' "-';,n�4'W'M�­�AJ��'"mIL�"k�,i_Y�"l,-I ":-.:;i��',��1,,��,,':i-���EA��'1-",­��'A'.�ips�-'t"$,�fi V�4 P_`1,�".�,;_-,_zr-''tii'".,,L,,'���­""­­­��,��'�--_":::'0�-1�'_�t1'�-1Z'���-"''�i'�,.vt'­�i,�g,:"....'"-"'�­­�-="NR4���.K�'�_"�""�`.,���iij��;i,�_�-_�.._-r,;!M�"�­-�-��E ".�'1:­�::�_,'­.-L,,l_T;%'ff"".n.0,�_,--���E�,._�'1,��,,"__*�'-L�i1''`4't!,�__"­"'r�:�u_��,;","'.,,v"-0._-'!""!1_',:::1"_�'-_�'M$t1 __�0_.M,��!��,�� ,I M�__Z'.�,1�..---�-­_5.-�1'-1:_M,�_,"a�,.�--li�A;I.4%­-N_"'=7"'�..,,...,L'�'."--"IIIi-_'_'--'.­ �,_-_S--__._�Fi?_',�--1-L­'''_�o,";',�r�rv­"­-'_..i�''�,A14'�.� ,,-';_'--MT:'�-�_ft_­,&-.� ��­�w-L0�1���II-_1�_��;__:..1-.Z;'Z--''_'�',-�,�...L.g';R,S-'.I`-:`>--'-�­�K­-�-_�,-��-1-�",_w--�-z=_7�_'sE.77���rr,."�--,j�i OI­��,'__���- ­�"7�'�'A_ ='-�.,��-0 A�'f���'I..;.,,-_�4'-:,Z_�'­�'�­,.-.�---.,.��,'.-�,-'p'1:�0�11­-'--��Z E ,-_-.-L��:fk7=.p�'S-�'i--_MN�j-1__-'�,_:.�_���"ij�,;M Mj_'";,'-__i ­;.­_r'�-�,:';IiP.Q.a,EIv,."1:j';�rS_�­j")....�'WN-� N. 4. �- , � Via: -�--,I_:;'L�-'I.Z44:-�7�A,L_�'���_�,�­'L'�.'J_.'�,,��.-,_�'.lIL:!�7-4 5.....:-:.L-"T:-!:---"LL�.'1�,.�I",�i".��"_,�L_�'­_L.----!_,--�'-.'_.-.�',i.�I,-b!"'--�".__�,�..:'"7,�_.�,�'I�:'-._-­-L-7..I­,-.-�!-�,�,--.,_�_-I_.�,.-_-�t',_f'-'�L_--��..--��..:'-,�-----�_.­"�,,�,L'-­'­:..�-,O_,.'"-:.-��?-_.-.,,,a��-�;��_-__:-'L.L-:1t.I�_r�_�:!��''�_::�I.�_.�,1--"��_��T�a��,�Ii;�_a.1:.IQ�"���-�_-t i:,,-'."_"�',,-'=­,,�:'"I-"�...'.��­-­.,g�::.-E''I�-.I!..--1._�i�,.I,.L-�L�_-..7.��-m E�--M_,��.--?�',�_-A�_..�:..--7-.��!L-i"��'K�..�­�r I-I'-.:,.._g_�I:�Tt--,�''-"4..'�.'';�.�:_.-_1�I� i-��-,,�II�'1"---,�L..,.p,"-'..:�l._--,-I I"'_-��,�i-!r-�1 I''_-.��Z�.;.,'­-.�.-,.",'I­-.IL.'�-_I M;.�.�_��.�%:�_.,'_-',::�A-t0!..'1L�''"_.'�I.-,�I"��­�.-�'i.I."-��_�_-",;.�-.�,"1.-'�i..�..�.'!'�L-;­�-.1..-.:��­����I.L'�-..0.�-'-",-..'.�_���-�--1.-"'..­�'z.�a-��'�..�,-�t­_."�t�';i,-Ir.�--���-.'.­�,�,,'��1:':-:�,,I 1�.­­,L-.'.l�.-�_-.I'�'-t,W��'r_-�.�i--.A�.:Ff!�l-'.,�i,",qa.­i..--'%..-�'�%_',-:,.,.,i��,I L.'.,-1;�_-1._.��:.:��­'--'_-�,_.---.-,�-I_-­.,:.I-_-�,�__,_,�.2-_�;..�-_�%�...7-'":'!,.'�.��.':.'I_­tr..1:..�_ C ofiuntin a-ton Beacffa _ k Y 3 _ . Y } ,l L uZ 7 k �t 7�­'..'%!�-1�'":_-'-1._�­_1,�t-��_­i k�"'_.i�-Ir-.:_.�_�,"_�_'_'��I-._.,­­L-��-�..4�_�,.''��:LL-.L,�04_---���'_,.-��-.'''_­-.�I_�-I1:.-_:�-,��;_-__LI�',..,,.�I'�4'�7�T­,­��5__.:.�-�j 5'.'1-..�..U',�'�­'L.-�_;I'i,;1_­"I"�-"-L.-­�'­3 1,�:3'-.;'.��.!-'-'��,.I�.'��,'-"_..1I.,�­,"'-�,:,.'";].� ­,�,I-..*-..-_-1'.:.'.,�'_,,��:.-;'3,�r'R', ,_i I:'.'.1..J��.�,'..��,;��"--,,.;":��.�'"'.....3��.,,�..L--"--`�_j�!-�_,...�i.'-­4-�,L.,,���-�1!'";.�I�:-0d�!-1''':��":,�,_'L'�I..�_�-_-�Z_­�,.��.�I�A"_--�-.,--A, '._T��,-�_,'L��.'����W-��_','-�­-.-'l,.�_-''�..l�.'-w�..1ii:i'�_�-LL_-''._­,.-;-�� ...�'4'--_-�-,,�'.,,�,j!.�'zW­�_L,'_.!g-'�r-_',--'-.,;-�,,1�"-_:'_VP-�­'M�.i L�1_,�,,�.:V�.���Z��:I_,1''�;"-�-�;­.,._�.�.,,_�,-;�q-,.��''.i'''_' -",1�II��%_-�'�,��?-g:"'�I'__�',,I._i..;!'',_-�_'�:__�_I�="� ­'-I!.-:����_�i,�i1�..­`'L"�--z,��i"-.,-�.�"'--".-&:�i�L7�,_.i_-�_­,I,"'--I�'�_i-.:-�'�4l�.!�"'_-1.1­.­!�':,-._,'-'�V.-,"­!._-:_,�..!'.�''=,_.'_IH­�;:�-,_�,��-;�,lPi­- ,�-'-Q-�.i4:�Fi'.�"`j�,�:-e-i-.L",-�-l'LL"_�._--�'--��--.�',",;�'..I�i��-�-.�­:�II-._"�z�o"�,,-1��i-J-f"__'_''''�!�'�'-.����,L .�'i'­W__�-':-.�"�,--�--�:'-.t­_--"�_':i;P!I�:'_'Z'- _I i­":"j"-�z__'..._-�_I";.I,-�:�-"�_­�[__,'"4_:�-"�-�:i­"-r-'�'"�,�-.I.,'2",_"���_"'_Vf I tt'_rj,---:.-1-�.'t�:­-�'-.1��-*"���.'-';._..''[�:,�:. :5�.''�:[",-�-:�.�"_I,I;3--,�-: .L.l''.-.­L��"-..:�-.�­-'_,'�I"...'.i't-�.��- ,-"L_.,-�"�-...._�_r'�-..�_'_' �!.,-.�I'L."''....,%-'"O­�"..L___',�,-.�,.'.I-��t-.-,,­,­.�.t�I,,..�,:-,,.��,�.I.4..-�-_I,1%:.L­'.:.W-,�­1I.�I..1'--Tft�,��,��-L"_I��"I_'�.:..,_;_,-�"_-��;-,­l�,.:L:'�"-��,-..'.;."�"_�.�_-L,,"I.�%LI,,';,-�,n.'_,1.;--,�...�I"._!�.�I� L,:".-'I�,i.�I.,,.I,,,.-""-.,��'._..-�-'';�1 L;M_'-.,.I­',-j"L',.._..,.,�---�­:I.L���:.1���'!:.''I-I-i.'I�_:L'�I��.�_-.9��_.��..T,,.�,L-"�,..,.�::..:;�r.d--i-.,'_*_,,�,"..,I::'�.:.��,��I.'L:L�.1��-..L�'-­,-.'��-:1''L!::,-­..-,'�I--'.'.I L.%-%�LL�:::,;,.'�­�_.�.1..''t-1,--T-,'":,­'L:'i i_1 I--::i_-�-.LL".-u,�.:--_,i-,�,.:'�,�..-­- _­�:--_W:;'.-4,.,�_1i,,;ti`­,,:--�..'Z i._,�l�.DI'-;R�.--:�,'-�:.-,-.''"....'�,'Chi'­_�'�:�,g'��I� ��1.'�-�-"­;_'.:LL'-1"�_I�E.I 4�-I-__��.-_'-��_.�..�'--�.'�.;I..-'.'_", :-"..'_s�,,�':I�'4.:..,4'N�i��''"�-n,�'..;-_­"�tI.-�s- -_.�1_�'11:�..'.'"'�..-"-_-' ,���,L,,,-�L-:0;­-L I­..1ir,:�",N.:Ii;"�','-�.%ir�I��.'_�'l-'1z'�3._��-r-,_�_-.-�I I,�,,.:��...i��-.�'_-..T,�..,�-I.���Z-�,.._'i'--V"."�­� ".��K_�ft:�4�,i.��:..:I,�--�_I:-__I-_".,,'�'�_1­I..-_'­,__­I:j.!_1:"�_�-�V$.-.%1,,�ftL.:-'_-)II�q�IL F-Z�,:'I_L1�J:.-�,�1�--t.,�R;�­.L-''�-1,-,-.,.-"_I�:j,L��--��"i�II.�"�,.:­,.:'�.I 1_..�VIT­-�'�-L,-1.I ::.I.---�-i.,-'.-,,-,:-'Q.i��-%'-­1.:._""�1.�i":"-,�'L_._�_,�-�-­'7�l1 I-,''.�..---,.�,-,-.­''L-',­��.I%-�.,I_,-��l.::.�._,�T��,I�''�I.�-!'"-1i:.�.I!-_.--''""­�._.i:­.�i�_._-.�1,:--�_''.-r..­�1...1:­j1_-.;t-�4,�,_,­-�.---�-,_.'�.,"-.::-.-.j­,���:��i'V.I�­�,.:,1;:I._.f-­".7.-I�-:._-�I-"',_p_".,' -'7�z,_�_' '��,.-�.'.L.�-..,1lI�­�-o:.­L1f. '.LL,.�'.I,.-!.:L�f',I,i,,I-_"'�"-�.-_2.-­I.�,.1.�_­"_���..:'..�';.-"�I-,rr:­�LLZ�;.;�..:..-".��I',­I.�L-���_I.L.-_:i� ' ° y _ rysaw Y f i, -r i- a ® i > :..- :'I"1z'. ,;�_ ..7.,"1'_'.;�_ r ' } . x ,.-- tin Er L"l'� - - 7 P - i'� - 3y.:.:�E',,;�._1 -ram".'k% ' �"T„"`--' c I ,; :. F 1 - 'i _ - x :­s' �"—:�7�,-�,;-.,­ ��-_'"-��,TI�'_,;'Ii,f-:�.1 .t;""�._.'�"7_ 1"Z�-_:,��I'_ '.j�":--L-,E%:'i._� ,.�-'�,���i'­-'�1_:' '.,..i .� .!.-��:� 1. -�"_� t Z �­�-��1�_il r�"�'�E:­­,�.."I"'��.�_�',I�Z�_i�2�,-�,:,I.!_'�­u.p-.,_.'�-;.'�1�­'"���I J.1';9z_I4�','�;�i­L,:I;;!;' s ' ix y J�Cr y - u aK" _ 4 _ 4'Y ," '' d+"Lnx n". y �J 1; ,,, , - If i} 1 L r - �'" tr". !�!",,�!�'�'&,.V�-'c`I,-d.�� �n'T-,-�,'i�"._7�'�'.�',�_I".'i:-.�.���,1­i�,��,�.;-.-:,I:.�-"-_, �,1,�'�-,.­i',.��_.:,-4�xI-�,_,K,T.��'",1,_�1"�_V7-.�'-i r".L"�,"-.��L��-!.!",�.l._�':'�_�"���',�.�'r j!7;��-.��:�,���;�".�.-,'�i�.,-;,'-1i..�-n.-�1'i:,:__�--���"'1,:.-.il�III­]!,"'­'�,I�[-,a-���,.__i�-�'�.I`,._',�''--�-,�,,"L;..:,_�`.�_-_'-T'.,'-._I,'!,�-�,,',,"..:,:�_,-�",-1�­,-_-�._I!----_-i -._:��'.-7.1 4 yam, S Y.. 'bu f3 'S'M' 4­.'-�­�­O._'__..,­-:�'­_i,Z�,�7_,�I�-i_:­.,.-,�.�r,.:�-�-'_�6-;_:__'i,, ,d,�"'����,-.-­�I�,�a�-,�7�­'.,�!­�-,"-:�L',­.,''_1,.i�"�I�'�-__�,�4z'z",,,'�i,'­''i4r�'-.."_,i,"';�'1-, 4­-,_�_j­_'','-,�-�'-;;1%"L'�­''--.fi-i:_1_�.F_'".�k_��.-_�F"I..:,,..,__-'!­,"",:1!],,-_',';�-'.,,�.-.!2-_­'­��'��� .i-j�j'!,�-T_n11 LZ--1'2-�-:'�!,-.�,�'_,-�2.,?�-i',z''�.j'"-.'.�:��,,iL, ,�'_­.:�--�.--__,_,--­_L",�-��_!�_'.,--.�9 ��-".,;'1,1 iz:;_-�I�Z'­a�.I"-_-F,",��-_�_..-_�?"�-4_�-i'LLC,"l,'�-��,-�":'­-��-���­1-1_­''--�:]7�_-�,,--�L:","'�1 _-_1._.­1,!_-,�-",,:;.!I�r'!-11.-!�-.-,- ­��-,--,'�:��'.,-._,1.-.�'.,�-[­�-...�%.i'­.�.�.,�-:­L!-%j.,"_,r"_9-.-'.I.�.�-'l�,`_'--'_T'!.—,,.�e�.�,�1 L!'-_,'-�".�!�'­�I�­',!L-�_­.�,'--:9_�-.L,--'.L"-.,'�i'­­�?�.4_:g�,L�4�-I­I-�-.­-�.-'�-'.f,��.L�-_1.�._,��.:­."-.L!,_-,i--­T:?"_.,'_-�,''.�,'.ji.i L-,g--_]L:1:,1..�"j.-----��"rL...'�."'.I-�'i­.�._'­-.'"..'�.-,,,,'-r�_l..,_':'_.-L�_Lt-�q_:-;-.._'-�;'7..L-...�_:�._,yp.l-:''%' :�.:j-�,.���-L--_',I-_:.;�1._".L.''-a�,-�'-�.,'-"'i.':.',1.f:'.�1 r�1�,B.,,-�-",:��'r."­::I�.�".i4.��;�-�­-�U:'�,..�--_--,��I%).i',:i.jjI,..�.,I:I 1.__�_..-.',".."6:._�1,- ���II-'-;.I:"ii�-t::_-'.,�,-_-a-.­i--..'._-.!:I-;­'.'j],.,1.�--'_...�,��._,.-'��-�-4�.:-.I�'_'''W"_,i---i�, ..�.,-.�'7%1,v_-.:''-��-_­.--.-::..-­:e"_.�1�- ',K.­,_"�-,,.r��1�I L­�� _--�1__L'._-_L.L&��­-�'�-I.�w��._L--1:-,'.._LLi�L_-��,.:��N�����'�1,L L r,L:L-.,b�.�:�'.!�.4.��-:.�:-:L._1".�0.a--­ _-- _�U.-11:,-..,-_ ­-L�­�...�"_Ifl'�E:�.�77''�;.­P--_�L',"-�,L.i��II.-''1�­�..L­�L-�"!.:::LI"�-�,I.-.�-�: t"-_m-,OE_' �-..;!_--1,',:'::.�",�.-..�1 4.%..1�­I�-1L p�-��:"�.�.�II�L��,,­_'.�Z,_,­".:.L:L 1--LLL�L:-6'­.�-: 1....­::�W""'..'t,,,_.-...L".�:,'.--_%:�,,.,.,7'.'":�I'L,...:.�:.�::,­...� I.I.'.­.--:�.,_:.�:_--���:� I-,-"�:: 2R�j�_::.,.s.��.:,,*__.,' �_�-.�I-"��­:�-.---.-_:.1I I:�I.�,1.�;-.�....:.I,:..�'� _.;;i;�I.L._�-...,,:... .-,111111.:w�..L�"i�W �­.5,'?'�­....-:: ....:. --',.-1�-LLI..-L,�...'.I�,--.,L'._.,�i'�_�..::��,..-­-..,j 1.I:.I. �..L L�,.._I'll,�.1 j� ..""�. �I"I..���.:1 .,�'_ �' f - +� .w f' b ', I c' 1 .£ `s , .j,']L:IL1.�I L_�-l..;..".'_s1�.:L I.--.-'1---_-.'wR.I.-,­,.[.-�-I!''-.'_._��.:..L5R-'.'I_X.�,o:c,.�L`�1i'­�I _',,'---,"�­-L I.-.'::.1�',�-'_.',.-I-�:�.-:-,f�'�:�.-1:�I_�,.._-_-`"'­'-_-:-'�",,%..,_,-7-:!! .,­'-_._-��_';.:.,�:1:�"I-'_'"�'..,._.-!.�]�"1--._-�,,-�..�it:i�--.t P,'-,'_ .-'�:'-_,',".'._­I�.,--�.'�..7,;l-,l-,-:: ��1.,��-.:.7-.'-,._.-I.:��-.'.�i��:� _,LR,--_.�t.­j1�..'1"�,:�'._.,-..--�_,-��:'�-­.-�­�i��I.,:-­-t�'--.�II--.-i.I.I_�:..�,,�.-%.�,.-"- ,­y':,!'���1..:L.-:.­W _-'�-1.1,1::1.��::-.-�--,�,1,�:..!!'.--�',.- '�;l 1_-a-':_1:�.,�:�-".���I�It�.,I.-,:::'�,,.1..r�".-�_­­.i�..�I'.-.�-,.:L,1,_"',!..,L��':"ILL-.._,.�1'ILL-,'�1.j.b,.-i--'.IzLL:.L-_'"_t�..:.:."��"�,..:':'.,�-'%.'.��_.��_,"- :,.;­,�m'�'..­L-,.�1�;�-.,,.:,-.::1:�"�N'-.�L:.��".'.'''.�::,"--�-:�' ...:'.._-�,�.1�'..�_.,�.1-.-_��'1- -.-. ,­.'_,-".:��I'"I'I..-­�;­.�'."�.��1�.: --._'_,1.-��-L.--.''-_::.:-_-7'­_.L�t':�-I,i""_,_-_-�� --­�_',_.-...."­ ,...�.:-,,1I: .�,���I 4-;._-:..".,-L--"-_-�..L.,.!��''-�.N­L ..':��'�:-.."-�7�r��--,,;..1g�0".'..�,�I..:I.I�''�1­�;-��iL- ,I�L�i-�9L.�,.­-',.,.�,���I''-.'',._,I�I LL"._­�.-..,,-i��L...�,­'.- ,�'.-'-.._--�i�' :�--,,.,_.:'"__'�L-�_:....._.'_-,,�1.'....7�._i:..'':�.­__,��,'j.::.�.-N,..'.., :'.�.4�-_..�:.'-�_:.:I1p:I'�iW-�-.,-' .,�.'ll,L�_.�'I 1I..�.�,�.,L",.-1I�.�.�.j�,.��1L1'..1_---'­..11:1��,:�'.::L-:,­,K I�.I�..i-­11..� s L���-:�_,-'­:L-,. �_-�,-.LI.I-!,',",.-�.IL�_�:�.i__..�,.,, 4.-�.,­­���LL;�.L�g�I I"LL,1 :I'll�.,­_��.L'�'I�i�.".L� �I:,I1..I,-- _' 4 h d �� ` ,"II,_I�"_:-_�'�I_��'I1'�L�i1�'M.�,:i,A�--0,'I."��'v�'_'�K_���I��.R;�o�!;-ZT-_�,�-�iI,;1 1-��,,,_"`"­,'�,,­1I;Iv1---t�Z,,�1'�_,��1,.,�-...;.­.1'­--,­­�_E'�?,-.��--'��S.g,'­.''.�..,��-,­i�,��:1�­-_M'1M!:_.N' ......-.;!M_�.-"'-.1'L1'�l,L­�,,,,���,'��;m1,',,',. ����-IL'":1�'_FMl.e"j 11�j1II,1a�'­�-I��i'!.�v%j"F�__fR'_��­­-__--�.;�_���,'0"I�_-�"�-,�,,,�[f'";-1��-_%a-'t t"L,,.�...q��MMM.�_"'1,,I''',2�,�';�,"�L_ffl17_'t�,_�-_L�'r'�,g'�em 7-�i�t�E'_L��E:�'_"�-'2'l'.�IL­.­fz�iN',��,j,1Mj$LiN�� ����,:,_O­,1�.Mw Ma,-NW,.--'Mm_!N"."j�",,1_I1'771_��V�-'rI'r.h,..:*=�-j'.-'�i1';�-�-­'.4­.�";_�:�lj',1�1___T1�;!M­.,�I�W­K�,--��'­-�,-��",',"�,�I,��,-,­',-�.��­,1 1�='%!'��1�"..­ .;;;;'''V-��,'..�_��M,,�r��j',��_Z-,��I_-ie�_UW';?'l�'S",-__"'­"'''�w�,"l'--0-!11jjj TO-�k-`'1'a�','.�,���i'..",'_4�I",'--I.-��';IL,­-�'�_,_;;_j�'­';e-�-_:�1��_;1_,�"�� ��­,-!l-.-1W�-��'_-'-,1-.��!-�4��M1-I-,�'1��_.,-qrr.-2��',�,,"_*1W- i ..�%�-`,�O��A&,��.ZM--,1''"­�- h � a" -,,�i�.7�-�!'��-�-­Z�R"'j"t�_'����,­'W��1�,_.1�w-r1'__V-:11i''�1M�,�-1.i,'­;'�::4 M�,IN�"p"g.j. .-�j�Mt''���-."�,1�',,_R 4��I�1Z A'�d''.,2-'''_.­_�N���,4'r,�*"i""',.�,1:�-­'_� --a ' _ 4 c . N� w t r ICI #20111110�3 } ,w � L = t E x ,.'19�M-,&­-_��'�,­.','�''M%�,'.a'.�-,�4�-II_"­­'','�',i'1''''''',��__1�;I-'�I�i�j�:�'"'';'�_,� u �V ' f y '# - i..-- . 4 � _� - _'. 3 ` 2 -� pp - f w 3 F bru 2Q12 N n P -' 1 3 x r �� ur Z:� F t (! (r IFI C! F [ t, �i-:�.G F $ t d 7 Y ;- ai Ea. Y 9F f 6. :,j' v T� 'l .Z 5�._..��_-_"7=-:�'-_-7�"�!_-''LL'��.'­q�-.:`�'--­'�.__'�.,'_i'��','���.",1'�--.�-_­_%,�-.T.-`­."._,_,,�-"%_��_­',I_�m 1�-"-­,O�r_'.;".�1�.�­7--L-Y��n_.L.:­_''-2�'­'_L-�-�.!--,"'_--�-L__:­��:,.,�-;._'_'..�.-�---"'�7I-_1'�.�.��'�:L�._�,����_.�:-_"'�-­,_,-.,�,�!',�t-M�,­���71'�-�::I-.'.�_-�--'�'.,I�;M�-'�---_-�%.9-._-,���_,��'1��:,.�.-��._�._,,I�-1�.JL�".,'--6­��'`I.L,'_�.:�I­':���_L-_'o,'-�1'-_-­1-'_,,-'),-.��.:,-�_.�­��".1�!,�-Z.�L�-'-���:�.,i:­_:-,"_�l-_-'�,.:I_.�.�_7�!�_""_-m-- .::_'��"1_�";__�.,',���-,.�I,�b�'�.a%_��,'_,�-­,,_r_�'-�L'..��­i 1t��I_-_,,.�_-i 1'.�­-`�i:J_,­V1�,:.�. ;I�'��-,*­���'_1�,:--.11....I'll_:,­-,,.�: '"__�-�__:.�__.7�-,�'L­;',t"r--,_;­�.-'��;�..'-_L:�­i_-'I_-',_-"-_'�� ::. ., aa - :. JSti� } �. " __'yam �h r Sa`. ___ { .-.�."���-�,.-��"I-L_,..':-:'::,�­_�,�'_-�-, t �a w ",�"'--;-;:�__­,!": Item 9. - 5 3 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Draft 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, Planning Aide (714) 374-5317 Prepared with the assistance of. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 February 2012 Item 9. - 54 H -150- This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 30% post-consumer content and chlorine free virgin pulp. HB -151- Item 9. - 55 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents ]Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance BIR Table of Contents Page Executive Summary.................... ................................ .......... ......... ----ES-1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Background................................................................................ ............................1-1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority.......__.......... ....... ........1-2 1.3 Scope and Content.............................................................................................................1-3 1.4 Lead,Responsible, and Trustee Agencies......................................................................1-3 1.5 Environmental Review Process.......................................................................................1-4 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Applicant...-...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Location......-........___.....__....................................... .......... ......__... ....2-1 2.3 Existing Characteristics.....................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Proposed Ordinance Characteristics...............................................................................2-6 2.5 Project Objectives..........................................................................___.............................2-S 2.6 Required Approvals and Permits....................................................................................2-S 3.0 Environmental Setting 3.1 Regional Setting...................................... ....................-3-1 3.2 Cumulative Projects Setting.........................................................................................•--..3-1 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis.............................. .......-4-1 4.1 Air Quality.......................................... -.4.1-1 . .. . .. . ... . . . . . .. . . 4.2 Biological Resources ......................................................................................_A. 2-1 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................4.3-1 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality...... ............ .............................................................4.4-1 5.0 Other CEQA Discussions 5.1 Growth Inducing Impacts..................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects...................................................................................5-2 6.0 Alternatives 6.1 Alternative 1:No Project Alternative...............................................................................6 1 6.2 Alternative 2. Ban on Single-use Plastic Bags at All Retail Establishments...............6-2 6.3 Alternative 3:Mandatory Charge of$0.25 for Paper Bags ..........................................6-7 6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .........................................................................6-12 7.0 References and Report Preparers 7.1 References,.................. .................. ...................7-1 7.2 Report Preparers.................................................................................................................7-5 City of Huntington Beach i Item 9. - 56 HB -152- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents List of Figures Figure2-1 Regional Location..............................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 City of Huntington Beach Aerial....................................................................2-3 Figure 4.2-1a Sensitive Plants and Natural Communities Reported by the California Natural Diversity Database..................................... ................................4.2-11 Figure 4.2-1b Sensitive Animals and Critical Habitat Reported by the California Natural Diversity Database and US Fish and Wildlife Service.............4.2-13 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts,Mitigation Measures, andResidual Impacts......................................................................................ES-4 Table 2-1 Estimated Single-Use Plastic Bag Use in Huntington Beach........................2-5 Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California....................3-2 Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Data..............................................................................4.1-3 Table 4.1-2 Existing Emissions from Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification(AA) from Carryout Bags in Huntington Beach..................4.1-5 Table 4.1-3 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards......................4.1-6 Table 4.14 Existing Plastic Bag Replacement Assumptions........................................4.1-10 Table 4.1-5 Estimated Emission s that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification(AA) from Carryout Bags in HuntingtonBeach..........................................................................................4.1-11 Table 4.1-6 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of the Proposed Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance..........................................4.1-13 Table 4.1-7 Operational Emissions Associated with Proposed Ordinance................4.1-13 Table 4.2-1 Natural Communities and Special Status Plant and Animal Species in HuntingtonBeach............................................................................................4.2-6 Table 4.3-1 Annual Anthropogenic GHG Emissions......................................................4.3-1 Table 4.3-2 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags in HuntingtonBeach............................................................................................4.3-5 Table 4.3-3 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags in HuntingtonBeach..........................................................................................4.3-11 Table 4.3-4 Proposed Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies............................4.3-12 Table 4.3-5 Proposed Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures........................................................4.3-13 Table 6-1 Estimated Bag Use:Proposed Ordinance versus Alternative 2...................6-2 Table 6-2 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification(AA)from Alternative 2.....................................6-3 Table 6-3 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative2........................................................................................................6-4 Table 6-4 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 2..................................6-4 Table 6-5 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 2...........................6-6 Table 6-6 Estimated Bag Use:Proposed Ordinance versus Alternative 3...................6-7 Table 6-7 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification(AA)from Alternative 3.....................................6-8 City of Huntington Beach ii HB -153- Item 9. - 57 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents Table 6-8 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative3 ............................................................................................... ..6-9 Table 6-9 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 3................................6-10 Table 6-10 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 3.........................6-11 Table 6-11 Impact Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................6-13 Appendices Appendix A: Notice of Preparation,Initial Study,and NOP Comment Letters Appendix B: Air Quality URBEMIS Results Appendix C: Proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance Appendix D: List of Stores Potentially Affected by the Proposed Ordinance City of Huntington Beach Item 9. - 58 HB -154- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed ordinance and the significant environmental impacts,mitigation measures,and residual impacts associated with the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. PROJECT SYNOPSIS Project Applicant City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Project Characteristics The City of Huntington Beach 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 the criteria listed below. 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. Stores located within Huntington Beach that would be affected include the following: 1. Full-line, self-service retail stores with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000),or more,that sell a line of dry goods,canned goods,or nonfood items and some perishable items; 2. Stores of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law(Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code)and that have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9(commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or 3. Drug stores,pharmacies,supermarkets, grocery stores,convenience food stores, food marts,or other entities engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk,bread,soda,snack foods, including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Ordinance would prohibit the distribution of compostable and biodegradable plastic carry- out bags,as they are included in the definition of a plastic carry-out bag. The Ordinance would impose a ten (10) cent charge on recyclable paper carry-out bags,and requires that the paper bags be one hundred percent(100%)recyclable overall,contain a minimum of forty percent (40%)post-consumer recycled material, and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City,among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured for a minimum lifetime of 125 uses,be machine City of Huntington Beach ES-1 HB -155- Item 9. - 59 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead, cadmium, or other heavy element in toxic amounts,among other criteria. Plastic bags that are a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten(10) cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Food Program. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale,free of charge,either reusable bags or recyclable paper carry-out bags or both, to these customers, at the store's option. Customers would have the option to use their own reusable bags,or no bag at all. The intent of the Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of single- use carryout bags,and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags. It is anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic carryout bags and creating a mandatory charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers,the proposed Ordinance would reduce the number of single-use bags consumed within the City while promoting a shift to the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. Under the proposed Ordinance, single-use plastic carryout bags are defined as bags made from petroleum or bio-based plastic(i.e.,bags made with at least 90% starch from renewable resources such as corn,potato,tapioca,or wheat,or from polyesters,manufactured from hydrocarbons, or starch—polyester blends) that are less than 2.25 mils thick. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would prohibit retailers from distributing both petroleum and bio-based single-use carryout plastic bags at the point of sale. The proposed Ordinance would not prohibit the distribution of plastic"product bags," as defined,which include bags without handles provided to a customer to carry produce,meats, or other food items to the point of sale inside a store or to prevent such food items from coming into contact with other purchased items. The Ordinance would not apply to stores of less than 10,000 square feet that are not included in one of the three specified categories. It also would not apply to restaurants and other food service providers;therefore,it would allow these retailers to continue to provide plastic bags to customers for prepared take-out food intended for consumption off of the food provider's premises. The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would also impose a mandatory charge of ten cents ($0.10)for paper carryout bags at Huntington Beach stores covered by the Ordinance. The mandatory charge is intended to provide a disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at regulated stores and is intended to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach consumers. The mandatory charge would bill customers for each paper carryout bag provided by the affected stores. Revenues generated from the charge would be used to compensate the affected stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Ordinance,actual costs associated with providing recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags, or costs associated with a store's educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags. All stores would be required to keep complete and accurate records or documents,for a minimum period City of Huntington Beach ES-2 Item 9. - 60 HB -156- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary of three years from the date of sale,of the total number of recyclable paper carryout bags provided,and the total amount of monies collected for providing recyclable paper carryout bags. The records completed by the store would be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by any City employee authorized to enforce the Ordinance. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City's objectives for the proposed 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 • 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) ALTERNATIVES As required by CEQA,the EIR examines a range of alternatives to the proposed project that feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives.These alternatives are described and evaluated in Section 6.0,Alternatives. Studied alternatives include: • Alternative 1:No Project-The no project alternative assumes that the Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not occur. The existing retail stores would continue to provide single-use plastic bags and would continue to provide single-use paper bags free of charge to the customers, • Alternative 2:Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at all Retail Establishments- This alternative would prohibit all retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale, including restaurants and other retailers not covered by the proposed ordinance. • Alternative 3:Mandatory Charge of$0.25 for Paper Bags- This alternative would continue to prohibit three specified categories of retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale, but would increase the mandatory charge for single-use paper bags from$0.10 to$0.25. May City of Huntington Beach ES-3 HB -157- Item 9. - 61 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-1 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed ordinance,the identified significant environmental impacts,proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by classes.Class I impacts are defined as significant,unavoidable adverse impacts which require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines§15093 if the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Class III impacts are considered less than significant impacts, and Class IV impacts are beneficial impacts. Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1 A shift toward reusable Mitigation is not required. The impact would be bags could potentially alter beneficial without processing activities related to bag mitigation. production,which has the potential to increase air pollutant emissions. However,the proposed Single-Use Carryout 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 would be Class IV,beneficial. Impact AQ-2 Implementation of the Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag than significant without Ordinance would generate air pollutant mitigation. emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers. However, emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III,less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 13I0-1 The proposed Single- Mitigation is not required. The impact would be Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would beneficial without incrementally increase the number of mitigation. paper and reusable bags within Huntington Beach. However,the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to incrementally reduce the amount of City of Huntington Beach ES-4 Item 9. - 62 HB -1 s s- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation litter entering coastal and marine habitats,thus reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive species, plant communities, and coastal wetland areas. This is a Class IV,beneficial, effect. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact GHG-1 The proposed Single- Mitigation is not required. The impact would be less Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would than significant without reduce the number of single-use mitigation. carryout bags used in Huntington Beach and promote reusable bags, which are intended to be used multiple times. Implementation of the proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. However,emissions would not exceed recommended SCAQMD thresholds and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. HYDROLOGYM/ATER QUALITY Impact HWQ-1 Although the Mitigation is not required. The impact would be proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag beneficial without Ordinance would incrementally mitigation. 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,waterways and receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean, improving water quality. This would be a Class IV, beneficial, effect. Impact HWQ-2 A shift toward Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less reusable bags could potentially alter than significant without processing activities related to bag mitigation. production,which could potentially degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing regulations including NPDES Permit requirements,AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore,impacts to water quality City of Huntington Beach Ir ES-5 HB -159- Item 9. - 63 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation from altering bag processing activities would be Class III,less than significant. City of Huntington Beach ES-6 Item 9. - 64 HB -160- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the proposed Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. The Ordinance would prohibit specified retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale,and would create a mandatory ten cent($0.10)charge for each recyclable paper bag distributed by these stores. The intent of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is to reduce the number of single-use carryout bags used in the City and to promote the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would apply to three specified categories of retail establishments located within Huntington Beach's corporate limits,including: (1)full-line, self-service retail stores with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more,that sell a line of dry grocery,canned goods,or nonfood items and some perishable items; (2) stores of at least 10,000 square feet of retail space that sell any perishable or non-perishable goods,including,but not limited to, clothing,food,or personal items, and generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law [Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code];or(3) drug stores,pharmacies,supermarkets, grocery stores,convenience food stores,foodmarts, or other entities engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk,bread, soda,and snack foods,including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Ordinance is described in greater detail in Section 2.0,Project Description. This section discusses: • The project background; • T7w legal basis for preparing an EIR; • The scope and content of the EIR; • Lead, responsible, and trustee agencies;and • The environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND In response to concerns regarding the environmental impacts related to single-use carryout bags,the Huntington Beach City Council on October 3,2011 directed city staff to prepare a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance that would ban the distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags. City staff has prepared a draft Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance consistent with the Council's direction. This document is an EIR that analyzes the proposed Ordinance's environmental impact in accordance with CEQA requirements. A number of cities and counties have considered or passed similar ordinances within their respective jurisdictions. These include,but are not limited to: the City of San Francisco,the City of Seattle,the County of Los Angeles,the City of Berkeley,the City of San Jose,the City of Manhattan Beach,the City of Palo Alto, Marin County,the City of Malibu, the City of Santa Monica,Santa Clara County,the City of Sunnyvale, and the City of Long Beach. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR was prepared for the proposed Ordinance and distributed on November 17,2011 for agency and public review for a 32-day review period. City of Huntington Beach 1-1 HB -161_ Item 9. - 65 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction The City received letters from the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board and the Department of Transportation(DOT) in response to the NOP. The Department of Transportation did not have any comments specific to the environmental analysis. The City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board's comments included concerns related to hydrology (which are addressed in Section 4.4,Hydrology and Water Quality),air quality(which are addressed in Section 4.1,Air Quality),biological resources(which are addressed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources),and greenhouse gas emissions (which are addressed in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The Environmental Board also suggests that"robust models" of analysis in additions to Life Cycle Analysis be included in the EIR. This comment is addressed in Section 4.1,Air Quality and Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Methodology section which identifies how impacts related to carryout bags are calculated. Finally,the Environmental Board suggests that recreation impacts be further discussed in the EIR. However,as stated in the Initial Study(see Appendix A)the project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,and would reduce negative impacts on existing recreational facilities relating to the visibility and amount of litter (thus somewhat improving recreation facilities). Because it is anticipated that recreation facilities would be improved as a result of the proposed Ordinance,impacts are considered less than significant and no further analysis is required in the EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting during the NOP comment period,which took place on December 7, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. The NOP and Initial Study prepared for the project are presented in Appendix A. 1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance requires the discretionary approval of the Huntington Beach City Council. Therefore,it is subject to the requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that: ...will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines: This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation. This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Huntington Beach decision-makers. The process will culminate with City Council hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the Ordinance. Section 2.6 in Section 2.0,Project Description, provides a detailed description of approvals that may be necessary for the proposed project. City of Huntington Beach 1-2 Item 9. - 66 HB 462- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT This EIR addresses the issues that the City of Huntington Beach determined could potentially have significant effects. The issues addressed in this EIR include_ • Air Quality « Biological Resources « Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology/Water Quality This EIR addresses the issue areas referenced above that were identified in an Initial Study as having potentially significant environmental.impacts. The Initial.Study is included in Appendix A. The EIR references pertinent City policies and guidelines,certified EIRs and other adopted CEQA documents,and background documents prepared by the City in preparing the proposed Ordinance. A full reference list is contained in Section 7.0,References and Report Preparers. The alternatives section of the EIR(Section 6.0)was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives discussion evaluates the CEQA-required"no project" alternative and two alternative scenarios for the Ordinance. It also identifies the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives assessed. The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. The CEQA Guidelines provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The CEQA Guidelines state: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. Tlie courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at fill disclosure. (Section 15151) 1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES The CEQA Guidelines define lead,responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Huntington Beach is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the Ordinance. A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project,and a trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for the proposed project. City of Huntington Beach 1-3 HB -163- Item 9. - 67 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The major steps in the environmental review process, as required under CEQA,are outlined below. The steps are presented in sequential order. 1. Notice of Preparation(NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required,the lead agency must file an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse,other concerned agencies,and parties previously requesting notice in writing(CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk's office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the proposed project could create significant environmental impacts. 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Draft EIR must contain: a) Table of contents or index; b) Summary, c) Project description; d) Environmental setting; e) Discussion of significant impacts (direct,indirect,cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) Discussion of alternatives; g) Mitigation measures;and h) Discussion of irreversible changes. 3. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of Draft EIR. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the Notice in the County Clerk's office for 45 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the Notice to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation;b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public,and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days.When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review,the public review period must be 45 days unless the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091) approves a shorter period. 4. Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR;b) copies of comments received during public review;c) list of persons and entities commenting;and d) responses to comments. 5. Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project,the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency;and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). NEW NO— City of Huntington Beach 1-4 Item 9. - 68 xB -164- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 6. Lead Agency Project Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects;b)require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects;or c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects,if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted(CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043). 7. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR,the lead or responsible agency must find,based on substantial evidence,that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact;b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted;or c) specific economic,social,or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects,it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social,economic,or other reasons supporting the agency's decision. 8. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR,it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. 9. Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared(CEQA Guidelines Section 15094).A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges(Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]). City of Huntington Beach 1-5 xB -165- Item 9. - 69 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes the proposed project,including information about the project applicant, project location,a description of the major project characteristics,project objectives,and a list of discretionary approvals needed for project approval. 2.1 PROJECT APPLICANT City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would apply to three specified categories of retail establishments,as described in Section 2.4,located within the City of Huntington Beach's corporate limits. Huntington Beach is located in Orange County and is approximately 32 square miles in size. The City is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest,by Seal Beach to the northwest,by Costa Mesa to the east,by Newport Beach to the southeast,by Westminster to the north,and by Fountain Valley to the northeast. Huntington Beach contains a variety of land uses,including residential (single-and multi-family),commercial,industrial,office,and public facilities. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of Huntington Beach in its regional context, and Figure 2-2 shows an aerial of the City and surrounding communities. 2.3 EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS 2.3.1 Carryout Bags in Huntington Beach In response to concerns regarding the environmental impacts related to single-use carryout bags,the Huntington Beach City Council directed City staff to prepare a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Based on existing conditions, it is expected that the proposed Ordinance would apply to approximately 133 retailers in Huntington Beach. A list of stores that the Ordinance would potentially pertain to is included in Appendix D. The following describes the various types of carryout bags currently used in Huntington Beach. Types of Carryout Bags. Single-use disposable plastic grocery bags are typically made of thin, lightweight high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Hyder Consulting, 2007). For consumers,they offer a hygienic, odorless,waterproof and sturdy carrying sack,but are intended for one use before disposal. According to recent estimates,almost 20 billion of these plastic grocery bags are consumed annually in California(ClWMB,2007). Conventional single- use plastic bags are a product of the petrochemical industry. It is also claimed that conventional single-use plastic bags are manufactured by independent manufacturers who purchase virgin EW City of Huntington Beach 2-1 Item 9. - 70 HB -166- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description ij >Mxso ad n. 3. " Ag ":A§. - ;;x. 6 i f` "� .' K r p .s� � rM -a - 3S. ,r.: �i'>7 . e-san.�'M. 9"�gjygr'� >o �y '"fie I i ray 'fkr '�-:rA-`&`ri� Gfi`T'`'�"' nA APdPNit" yR` 1 ASM s7313' A"��s�t;� ? 'a� r - >+,«a, sum 47 7u� �,r". ukC.`�'� 4 �..",•crt .sr .l. ,, p AF ONE Y � L'�w -w ,�-.•u9he� 'i. 3' --�x. '. �aISG � 7itrg5`gt, F x''.. y tr5C ti K "#` * ro 2 imp r:y. >� c"r .�t ,. Dr:� 1,� W' 3x"• .c�'7 tom' � x�a�d xY � a ;n � ~} ' .�Y. 1 IA , � IN,AMMM atfaF let, a RE Mao zo. go _. t 'jr §h w z1s +r"` `f. � •'iih+.� €ksk`� 4e^',� �. *.` NOW-, 'w:. NEW `, � :„ 't' a`x-`f-� as s` 'x � �-kart w xn Yam• `. o'k° ,Px, f A� `���c�p�� �#�r � � -war 's �z ��Er�•.t� �"�`^^� ��Y.,�����i��� `��`"�,µ,.s°�"-. ii Ai- as s,„ _ 'Se -tee t .y, F�4�ElALBLS' .3wGi � € �1.i`°.v'. �j�F 1, � � � spa sa �x ��i� � �` '` � '�• 5 Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors, 2011. N Project Location 0 3 6 Miles A I i I i I Regional Location Fib re T1 City of Huntington Beach HB -167- Item 9. - 71 i • • • • • • mqg tag ' F ato} .y- - — fi3l x .i IN 77 l vly:a ' �f30 _ '`' `x`Y _ ry ,F s.- f �',, , - 3E ^HIM �_ �t � � r �.� ''� � $ 'fir ��x s�.` .�'�z'�� �..< •� - ��'� u�S lllAstgm zaq 'Sa ---• ". „"�*v - as. '� '°' --An" _ "-`' y-"",Y'-"` PRO Y's'l3ll o<0—:f ` P-' cr .rsy Ye "'� ,Y• r. R - 5. v as 3 WitME � "`y�u ' TxS�'� y r ¢st Fa- AN a 4 S mp; • Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EER Section 2.0 Project Description resin from petrochemical companies or obtain non-virgin resin from recyclers or other sources and that 85% of plastic bags used in the United States are made in the United States (Stephen L. Joseph,July 22,2010). Their life cycle begins with the conversion of crude oil or natural gas into hydrocarbon monomers,which are then further processed into polymers(Herrera et al,2008; County of Los Angeles,2009). These polymers are connected with heat 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. Typical single-use plastic bags are approximately five to nine grams in weight, and can be purchased in bulk for approximately two to five cents per bag (AEA Technology,2009). Single-use plastic bags can be reused by customers and are recyclable. Approximately 5% of single-use plastic bags in California are recycled(US EPA,2005;Green Cities California MEA,2010;and Boustead,2007). Like plastic grocery shopping bags, single-use paper bags are usually distributed free of charge to customers at grocery stores, and are intended for one use before disposal, However,paper bags are recyclable and can be reused by customers. Approximately 21% of paper bags nationwide are recycled(CIWMB,2009). Paper grocery bags are typically produced from kraft paper and weigh between 50 and 100 grams,depending on whether or not the bag includes handles (AEA Technology,2009). These bags can be purchased in bulk for approximately 15 to 25 cents per bag(City of Pasadena,2008). Kraft paper bags are manufactured from a pulp that is produced by digesting a material into its fibrous constituents via chemical and/or mechanical means (FRIDGE,2002). Kraft pulp is produced by chemical separation of cellulose from lignin (Environmental Paper Network,2007). Chemicals used in this process include caustic sodas, sodium hydroxide,sodium sulfide, and chlorine compounds (Environmental Paper Network, 2007). Processed and then dried and shaped into large rolls,the paper is then formed into bags, baled, and then distributed to grocery stores. Multiple types of single-use biodegradable bags are currently available,distinguished by their material components. Biodegradable bags are composed of thermoplastic starch-based polymers,which are made with at least 90% starch from renewable resources such as corn, potato, tapioca, or wheat,or from polyesters,manufactured from hydrocarbons,or starch- polyester blends(James and Grant,2005). These bags are approximately the same size and weight as HDPE plastic bags,but are more expensive. They can be purchased in bulk for approximately 12 to 30 cents per bag(www.ecoproducts.com,2009). Reusable bags can be made from plastic or a variety of cloths such as vinyl or cotton. These bags differ from the single-use bags in their weight and longevity. Built to withstand many uses,they typically cost approximately three dollars wholesale,weigh at least ten times what an HDPE plastic bag weighs and two times what a paper bag weighs, and require greater material consumption on a per bag basis than HDPE plastic bags (ExcelPlas Australia, 2004; City of Pasadena,2008). Many types of reusable bags are available today. These include: (1)non- woven polypropylene(100% recyclable) ranging from$1-$2.50 per bag; (2)cotton canvas bags, which are approximately$5.00 per bag; (3)bags made from recycled water/soda bottles,which are approximately$6.00 per bag;(4) polyester and vinyl,which are approximately$10.00 per bag; and(5) 100% cotton,which are approximately$10.00 per bag. City of Huntington Beach 2-4 HB -169- Item 9. - 73 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description The production stages in reusable bag life cycles depend on the materials used. Once used, these bags are reused until wom out through washing or multiple uses, and then typically disposed either in a landfill or recycling facility. Huntington Beach Carryout Bag Consumption. As shown in Table 2-1,based on the statewide data that almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags(or approximately 533 bags per person) are consumed annually in California(Green Cities California MEA,2010; and CIWMB, 2007),retail customers in Huntington Beach currently use about 102 million plastic bags per year. Retail customers in Huntington Beach may include residents of other communities and residents of Huntington Beach may not necessarily be customers of retailers in the City. However,for this analysis,in order to estimate the existing number of plastic bags used annually in Huntington Beach,the statewide data was utilized to apply the number of bags used per person per year rate to the number of residents in Huntington Beach. This estimate is considered reasonable for the purpose of analyzing the impacts of the proposed Ordinance. Table 2-1 Estimated Single-Use Plastic Bag Use in Huntington Beach Area Population* Number of Plastic Bags Total Bags Used Used per Person" Annually City of Huntington 191,677 533.18 102,198,343 Beach Total 102,198,343 *California Department of Finance, `City/County Population and Housing Estimates"(2011).Please note that this total also includes approximately 1,300 residents of Sunset Beach which was annexed into the City in August 2011. **Based on annual statewide estimates of plastic bag use from the CIWMB(2007)-533 bags per person=20 billion bags used statewide per year(CIWMB,2007)/37,510,766 people statewide(California's current population according to the State Department of Finance,2011), 2.3.2 Regulatory Setting In 2006, California enacted AB 2449 (Chapter 845,Statutes of 2006),which became effective on July 1,2007. The statute states that stores providing plastic carryout bags to customers must provide at least one plastic bag collection bin in an accessible location to collect used bags for recycling. The store operator must also make reusable bags available to shoppers for purchase. AB 2449 applies to retail stores of over 10,000 square feet that include a licensed pharmacy and to supermarkets with gross annual sales of$2 million or more that sell dry groceries, canned goods, nonfood items or perishable goods. Stores are required to maintain records of their AB 2449 compliance and make them available to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (C1WMB) or local jurisdiction. AB 2449 further requires the manufacturers of plastic carryout bags to develop educational materials to encourage the reducing,reusing,and recycling of plastic carryout bags,and to make the materials available to stores. Manufacturers must also work with stores on their at- store recycling programs to help ensure the proper collection,transportation and recycling of the plastic bags. City of Huntington Beach 2-5 Item 9. - 74 HB -1 70- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description Finally,AB 2449 restricts the ability of cities(including charter cities) and counties to regulate single-use plastic grocery bags through imposition of a fee. Public Resources Code Section 42254(b)provides as follows: Unless expressly authorized by this chapter, a city, county, or other public agency shall not adopt,implement, or enforce an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule to do any of the following: (1) Require a store that is in compliance with this chapter to collect, transport, or recycle plastic carryout bags. (2) Impose a plastic carryout bag fee upon a store that is in compliance with this chapter. (3) Require auditing or reporting requirements that are in addition to what is required by subdivision (d)of Section 42252,upon a store that is in compliance with this chapter. AB 2449 expires under its own terms on January 1,2013,unless extended.There are no other California statutes that directly focus on carryout bags. 2.4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHARACTERISTICS The City of Huntington Beach 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 the criteria listed below. 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 Stores located within Huntington Beach that would be affected include the following: 1. Full-line, self-service retail stores with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more,that sell a line of dry goods,canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items; 2. Stores of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code) and that have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9(commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code;or 3. Drug stores,pharmacies,supermarkets,grocery stores, convenience food stores, food marts, or other entities engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes mills,bread,soda,snack foods,including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. City of Huntington Beach 2-6 HB -171- Item 9. - 75 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description The Ordinance would prohibit the distribution of compostable and biodegradable plastic carry- out bags, as they are included in the definition of a plastic carry-out bag. The Ordinance would impose a ten(10) cent charge on recyclable paper carry-out bags, and requires that the paper bags be one hundred percent(100%) recyclable overall,contain a minimum of forty percent (40%)post-consumer recycled material, and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City,among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured for a minimum lifetime of 125 uses,be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead, cadmium, or other heavy element in toxic amounts, among other criteria. Plastic bags that are a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten (10) cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women, Infants,and Children or the Supplemental Food Program. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale,free of charge,either reusable bags or recyclable paper carry-out bags or both, to these customers,at the store's option. Customers would have the option to use their own reusable bags, or no bag at all. The intent of the Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of single- use carryout bags,and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags. It is anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic carryout bags and creating a mandatory charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers,the proposed Ordinance would reduce the number of single-use bags consumed within the City while promoting a shift to the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. Under the proposed Ordinance, single--use plastic carryout bags are defined as bags made from petroleum or bio-based plastic (i.e.,bags made with at least 90% starch from renewable resources such as corn,potato, tapioca,or wheat,or from polyesters,manufactured from hydrocarbons,or starch-polyester blends) that are less than 2.25 mils thick. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would prohibit retailers from distributing both petroleum and bio-based single-use carryout plastic bags at the point of sale. The proposed Ordinance would not prohibit the distribution of plastic"product bags," as defined,which include bags without handles provided to a customer to carry produce,meats,or other food items to the point of sale inside a store or to prevent such food items from coming into contact with other purchased items. The Ordinance would not apply to stores of less than 10,000 square feet that are not included in one of the three specified categories. It also would not apply to restaurants and other food service providers; therefore, it would allow these retailers to continue to provide plastic bags to customers for prepared take-out food intended for consumption off of the food provider's premises. The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would also impose a mandatory charge of ten cents ($0.10) for paper carryout bags at Huntington Beach stores covered by the Ordinance. The mandatory charge is intended to provide a disincentive to customers to request paper bags MMEW City of Huntington Beach ir 2-7 Item 9. - 76 Hs -172- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description when shopping at regulated stores and is intended to promote a shift toward the use of reusable hags by Huntington Beach consumers. The mandatory charge would hill customers for each paper carryout hag provided by the affected stores. Revenues generated from the charge would be used to compensate the affected stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Ordinance,actual costs associated with providing recyclable paper carryout hags or reusable hags, or costs associated with a stores educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable hags. All stores would he required to keep complete and accurate records or documents,for a minimum period of three years from the date of sale,of the total number of recyclable paper carryout hags provided, and the total amount of monies collected for providing recyclable paper carryout hags. The records completed by the store would be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by any City employee authorized to enforce the Ordinance. The complete draft Ordinance is contained in Appendix C. 2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City's objectives for the proposed Ordinance include: • Reducing the number of single-use plastic hags distributed by retailers and used by customers in Huntington Beach • Deterring the use of paper hags by customers in Huntington Beach • Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout hags by retail customers in Huntington Beach • Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout hags,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) 2.6 REQUIRED APPROVALS and PERMITS The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would require an amendment to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 5.90) with discretionary approval by the Huntington Beach City Council.The following approvals would he required: Certification of the Final EIR(City Council) a Adoption of an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code (City Council) No other agencies have discretionary approval authority over any aspect of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach 2-8 HB -173- Item 9. - 77 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed ordinance. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting germane to each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4.0,Environmental Impact Analysis. 3.1 REGIONAL SETTING Huntington Beach is located in Orange County and is approximately 32 square miles in size. The City is bordered by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest,by Seal Beach on the northwest,by Costa Mesa on the east,by Newport Beach on the southeast,by Westminster on the north, and by Fountain Valley on the northeast. Huntington Beach contains a variety of land uses, including residential (single-and multi-family),commercial, industrial,office, and public facilities. Huntington Beach has a Mediterranean climate,with mild,moist winters and comfortably warm,very dry summers. The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin(Basin),named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin,with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys or basins below.The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles,San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers,mild winters,infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s,measured in degrees Fahrenheit(°F). Coastal areas have a more pronounced oceanic influence,and show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The City of Huntington Beach is located in northern coastal Orange County,which is in the southern portion of the Basin. The annual average temperature in the City ranges from approximately 47.0°F in December and January to 73.57 in August(Western Regional Climate Center 2008). The current population of Huntington Beach is 191,677(California Department of Finance, 2011). Based on existing conditions, the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is expected to apply to approximately 133 retailers in Huntington Beach. Definitions of the store categories are included in Appendix D. 3.2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SETTING CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that,when considered together,are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example,traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately,but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects. MEW City of Huntington Beach 3-1 Item 9. - 78 1413 -174- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting Although CEQA analysis typically lists development projects in the vicinity of a project site, this document analyzes the environmental impacts associated with a proposed ordinance and does not include development or construction activity. As such,the cumulative significance of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance has been analyzed within the context of other carryout bag ordinances that are approved or pending throughout California. Table 3-1 lists current adopted and pending ordinances in California. These ordinances are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4.0,Environmental Impact Analysis. As shown in Table 3-1,17 carryout bag ordinances have been adopted or are proposed or pending(not including the proposed Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance) throughout California. Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City of Berkeley This ordinance would prohibit retail product On hold stores from making plastic bags available at checkout stands, and would require a mandatory charge of 25 cents on each paper checkout bag. Paper checkout bags would be required to have minimum post consumer recycled content. City of Calabasas This ordinance bans the issuance of plastic Adopted February 2011 carryout bags and imposes a ten(10)cent Effective July 2011 charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at regulated stores. City of Fairfax This ordinance allows all stores,shops, Adopted August 2007 eating places,food vendors and retail food After legal challenge, vendors,to provide only recyclable paper adopted by voter initiative or reusable bags as checkout bags to November 2008 customer. City of Long Beach This ordinance bans plastic carryout bags Ordinance adapted and at all supermarkets and other grocery Addendum to the County of stores, pharmacies,drug stores, Los Angeles Final EIR convenience stores,food marts,and certified May 2011 farmers markets and would place a ten Effective August 2011 (10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags by an affected store,as defined. The ordinance would also require a store to provide or make available to a customer only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags. City of Los Angeles The Los Angeles City Council voted to ban Pending plastic carryout bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by July 2010— but only if the state fails to impose a 25- cent fee on every shopper who requests them. City of Malibu This ordinance bans the use of non- Adopted May 2008 compostable and compostable plastic Effective November 2009 shopping bags for point-of-sale distribution. City of Manhattan Beach This ordinance bans the distribution of Adopted July 2008 plastic bags at the point-of-sale for all retail On hold pending lawsuit establishments in Manhattan Beach. City of Huntington Beach IF 3-2 BB -175- Item 9. - 79 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City of Oakland This ordinance bans the use of plastic Adopted July 2007 bags within the City. In April 2008,ajudge sided with a challenge to the ordinance filed by an industry group City of Palo Alto This ordinance bans large grocery stores in Adopted March 2009 Palo Alto from distributing single-use Effective September 2009 plastic check out bags. Only reusable bags(preferred)or paper bags can be distributed. Single-use plastic bags can still be used in produce and meat departments. City of San Francisco Retail stores governed by the ordinance Adopted April 2007 can only provide the following types of bags: a.compostable plastic b.recyclable paper c. reusable bag of any material City of San Jose This ordinance prohibits the distribution of Adopted January 2011 single-use carryout paper and plastic bags Effective January 2012 at the point of sale(i.e.,check-out)for all commercial retail businesses in San Jose except restaurants. An exception is made for"green" paper bags containing at least 40 percent recycled content,accompanied by a charge of 10 cents to the customer, with the charge retained by the retailer. City of Santa Monica This ordinance: (1)prohibits retail Adopted January 2011 establishments in Santa Monica from Effective September 2011 providing"single-use plastic carryout bags" to customers at the point of sale;(2) prohibits the free distribution of paper carryout bags by grocery stores, convenience stores, mini-marts, liquor stores and pharmacies;and (3)requires stores that make paper carryout bags available to sell recycled paper carryout bags to customers for not less than ten cents per bag. City of Sunnyvale This ordinance would prohibit specified Adopted December 2011 retail establishments Sunnyvale from Effective June 2012 providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale,and would create a mandatory 10 cent($0.10) charge for each paper bag distributed by these stores. County of Alameda This ordinance would prohibit the Pending environmental distribution of single-use carryout paper review under CEQA and plastic bags at the point of sale(i.e., check-out)for all commercial retail businesses in Alameda County. Exception would be made for"green"paper bags containing a specified minimum City of Huntington Beach 3-3 Item 9. - 80 HB -176- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status percentage of recycled content,which can only be provided to customers for a nominal charge to cover the cost to the business of providing the bags. County of Los Angeles This ordinance would ban the issuance of Adopted November 2010 plastic carryout bags and impose a ten(10) Effective July 2011 cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all supermarkets and other grocery stores,pharmacies,drug stores,convenience stores,and foodmarts, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The ordinance would require a store to provide or make available to a customer only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags. The ordinance would also encourage a store to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. County of Marin This ordinance prohibits the distribution of Adopted January 2011 plastic carryout bags and would charge at Effective January 2012 least$0.05 for a recycled paper bag. County of Santa Clara This ordinance allows affected retail Adopted April 2011 establishments to distribute either a`green' Effective January 2012 paper bag or a reusable bag. Reusable bags may be given away or sold and are initially defined(until January 2013)as bags made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles;or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mils thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple use.`Green'paper bags may be sold to customers for a minimum charge of$0.15 and are defined as paper bags that are 100%recyclable and are made from 100% recycled material. Source: Californians Against Waste,http:llwww.cawrecycles.orgrissueslplastic campaignlplastic bagsllocal,accessed July 2011;City of San Jose,City of Palo Alto,City of Berkeley,City of Los Angeles,County of Los Angeles,City of Malibu,City of Manhattan Beach,City of San Francisco,Marin County,City of Santa Monica,City of Calabasas,Santa Clara County, City of tong Beach Homepages,December 2011. City of Huntington Beach 3-4 HB -177- Item 9. - 81 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.0 ENVIRONMENT.AL IMPACT .AN.ALYSIS This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance for the specific issue areas that were identified through the Initial Study and NOP process as having the potential to experience significant impacts. "Significant effect" is defined by the CEQA Guidelines§15382 as"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,ambient noise,and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment,but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant." The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the setting relevant to that issue area. Following the setting is a discussion of the ordinance's impacts relative to the issue area. Within the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the "significance thresholds," which are those criteria adopted by the City,other agencies, universally recognized,or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential impacts are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed Ordinance,mitigation measures for significant impacts,and the level of significance after mitigation. Each impact under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text, with the discussion of the impact and its significance following. Each bolded impact listing also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows: Class I,Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved. Class II, Significant but Mitigable:An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made. Class III,Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. Class IV,Beneficiah An impact that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. Following each environmental impact discussion is a listing of recommended mitigation measures(if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after the implementation of the measures. In those cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area,this impact is discussed as a residual effect. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects,which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance in conjunction with other adopted and . pending carryout bag ordinances. City of Huntington Beach 4-1 Item 9. - 82 HB -178- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality 4.1 AIR (�CTALT I Y This section analyzes the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance's long-term impacts on local and regional air quality. The analysis focuses on air quality impacts associated with carryout bag manufacturing facilities and the impacts associated with truck trips that deliver carryout bags in Huntington Beach. Impacts related to global climate change are addressed in Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 4.1.1 Setting a. Chazacteristics of Air Pollutants. Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin. As a result of the climate and meteorology in the South Coast Air Basin,two types of temperature inversions(warmer air on top of colder air) are created in the area: subsidence and radiational(surface). The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is heated as it is compressed when it flows from the high pressure area to the low pressure areas inland. This type of inversion generally forms at about 1,000 to 2,000 feet and can occur throughout the year,but is most evident during the summer months. Surface inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the ground during the night,especially during winter. This type of inversion is typically lower and is generally accompanied by stable air. Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants within the regional airshed,with the more stable the air(low wind speeds,uniform temperatures),the lower the amount of pollutant dispersion.The primary air pollutant of concern during the subsidence inversions is ozone,while the greatest pollutant problems during winter inversions are carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The general characteristics of ozone,carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide,and suspended particulates are described below. Ozone. Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction(triggered by sunlight)between nitrogen oxides (NO),) and reactive organic gases(ROG). Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion of fuels,while reactive organic gases are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form,it mostly occurs in concentrations considered serious between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent,colorless,toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children,the elderly,persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant that is found in high concentrations only near the source. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless,poisonous gas,is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations,therefore,are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. Carbon monoxides health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations,carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood,causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities. Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide(NO2)is a by-product of fuel combustion,with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO),but NO reacts rapidly to form City of Huntington Beach 4.1-1 HB -179- Item 9. - 83 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality NO2,creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NO,,. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist,and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million(ppm) may occur. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PMlo and acid rain. Suspended Particulates. PMlo is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter,while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles,nitrates and sulfates. Both PMlo and PM2.5 are by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics,sources,and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (PM2.5)can be very different. The small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all groups,but particularly to the elderly,children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body's mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance. b. Current Air Quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District monitoring station located nearest to Huntington Beach is the Costa Mesa monitoring station, located at 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East in Costa Mesa. However, only the Costa Mesa monitoring station, does not measure particulate matter(PMlo and PM25). Therefore, data for particulate matter was taken from the next nearest monitoring station,located on Pampas Lane in Anaheim. Table 4.1-1, on the following page,indicates the number of days that each of the standards has been exceeded at these stations. As shown,the ozone concentration exceeded the state standard one day in 2010 but did not exceed the state standard in 2008 or 2009. The carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide concentrations did not exceed the state standard in any year between 2008 and 2010. The PMlo concentration exceeded state standards three times in 2008, one time in 2009 and did not exceed the state standard in 2010. The PM2.5 concentration exceeded federal standards on five days 2008 and 2009,respectively,but did not exceed the federal standard in 2010. c. Air Quality Management. Under state law,the SCAQMD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the District is in non-compliance. The SCAQMD updates the plan every three years. Each iteration of the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon. The plan was last comprehensively updated in 2007. The 2007 AQMP incorporates new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2003 AQMP. The SCAQMD adopted the 2007 AQMP on June 1,2007. It was updated March 4,2011 to include revisions to PM25 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for the Basin. The 2007 AQMP incorporates the revisions made in 2011. City of Huntington Beach 4.1-2 Item 9. - 84 HB -180- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant 2008 2009 2010 Ozone,ppm-Worst Hour 0.094 0.087 0.097 Number of days of State exceedances(>0.09 ppm) 0 0 1 Number of days of Federal exceedances(>0.12 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide,ppm-Worst 8 Hours 1.97 2.16 2.09 Number of days of State/Federal exceedances(>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide,ppm-Worst Hour 0.081 0.065 0.070 Number of days of State exceedances(>0.25 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter<10 microns, µg/m3 Worst 24 Hoursb 61.0 63.0 43.0 Number of samples of State exceedances(>50 µg/m3) 3 1 0 Number of samples of Federal exceedances(>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter<2.5 microns, µg/m3 Worst 24 Hours 67.8 64.5 31.7 Number of samples of Federal exceedances(>35 µg/m3) 5 5 0 bData collected for the Costa Mesa monitoring station Source: GARB,2008,2009,&2010 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries available at htto.11www.arb.ca.gov The 2007 AQMP was prepared to ensure continued progress towards clean air and comply with state and federal requirements. This AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2003 AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. This AQMP highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to identify additional strategies,especially in the area of mobile sources,to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under the Clean Air Act. New standards allow for a longer compliance schedule for federal fine particulates and 8-hour ozone but with more stringent PMlo and 1-hour ozone standards. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM25 standards through a more focused control of sulfur oxides(SOx).,directly-emitted PM25, and nitrogen oxides(NOx) supplemented with volatile organic compounds (VOC)by 2015. The 8-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM25 strategy,augmented with additional NOx and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024 assuming a bump-up is obtained. Further, the 2007 AQMP aims to reduce mobile source emissions by discussing measures that would address the remaining air quality standard exceedances in the region. The 2007 AQMP is incorporated by reference and available to download at http://w-ww.aqmd.gov/aq,Mp/"`­07aq,Mp/­index.html. d. Air Quality and Carryout Bags. Carryout bags can affect air quality in two ways, either through emissions associated with manufacturing processes or through emissions associated with truck trips for the delivery of carryout bags to retailers. Each is summarized below. City of Huntington Beach 4.1-3 HB -181- Item 9. - 85 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality Manufacturing Process. The manufacturing process to make carryout bags requires fuel and energy consumption,which generates air pollutant emissions. These may include particulate matter,nitrogen oxides,hydrocarbons,sulfur oxides,carbon monoxide,and odorous sulfur(Green Cities California MEA,2010). The amount of emissions varies depending on the type and quantity of carryout bags produced. These emissions may contribute to air quality impacts related to acid rain(atmospheric acidification) or ground level ozone formation. Although manufacturing facilities may emit air pollutant emissions in the production of carryout bags,manufacturing facilities are subject to air quality regulations,as described below in e.Air Pollution Regulation,which are intended to reduce the amount of emissions and the impacts related to air quality. For this EIR,the analysis is focused on the South Coast Air Basin, of which Huntington Beach is a part. Truck Trips. Delivery trucks that transport carryout bags from manufacturers or distributors to the local retailers in Huntington Beach also contribute air emissions locally and regionally. Based on a baseline population in Huntington Beach of 191,677 persons and a statewide estimate of approximately 533 plastic bags used per person per year,retail customers in the City of Huntington Beach currently use an estimated 102,198,343 plastic bags per year. Assuming 2,080,000 plastic bags per truck load (City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011),this number of plastic bags would require approximately 49 truck trips per year to deliver these carryout bags. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants,composed of gaseous and solid material(ARB"Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust",2010). The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM,which are very small and readily respirable. The particles have hundreds of chemicals adsorbed onto their surfaces,including many known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. Diesel PM emissions are estimated to be responsible for about 70% of the total ambient air toxics risk. In addition to these general risks, diesel PM can also be responsible for elevated localized or near-source exposures("hot-spots") (ARB,Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust",2010). Like manufacturing facilities, delivery trucks are also subject to existing regulations primarily related to diesel emissions,as described in e.Air Pollution Regulation. These regulations are intended to reduce emissions associated with fuel combustion and the impacts related to local and regional air quality. Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification. Various studies have estimated air emissions for the different carryout bags(single-use plastic,paper or reusable bags) to determine a per bag emissions rate. In order to provide metrics to determine environmental impacts associated with the proposed ordinance,reasonable assumptions based upon the best available sources of information have been established and are utilized in this EIR. Specific metrics that compare impacts on a per bag basis are available for single-use plastic,single-use paper and LDPE reusable bags. Air pollutant emissions associated with the manufacturing and transportation of one single-use paper bag result in 1.9 times the impact on atmospheric acidification as air emissions associated with one single-use plastic bag. Similarly,on a per bag basis,a reusable carryout bag that is made of LDPE plastic would result in 3 times the atmospheric acidification of a single-use plastic bag if the LDPE bag is only used only one time. EMW City of Huntington Beach 4.1-4 Item 9. - 86 HB -182- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality In addition, on a per bag basis, a single-use paper bag has 1.3 times the impact on ground level ozone formation of a single-use plastic bag. Finally,a reusable carryout bag that is made of LDPE plastic and only used one time would result in 1.4 times the ground level ozone formation of a single-use plastic bag(Stephen L.Joseph,2009;Ecobilan,2004;FRIDGE,2002; Green Cities California MEA,2010; City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011;and,Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,December 2011). The above statistics use the LDPE carryout bag as a representation of reusable bags in evaluating air quality impacts. There is no known available Life Cycle Assessment that evaluates all types of reusable bags (canvas,cotton,calico,etc.) with respect to potential air emissions. However,given the high rate of reuse of all types of reusable bags(usually at least one year, or 52 uses),the air emissions from these bags,when compared to the single-use plastic and paper carryout bags, are expected to be comparable to the LPDE bag or lower. Table 4.1-2 lists the emissions associated contributing to ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification using the per-bag impact rates discussed above and the estimated existing plastic bags used in Huntington Beach. As shown in Table 4.1-2,the manufacturing and transportation of single-use plastic carryout bags currently used in Huntington Beach each year generates an estimated 2,351 kilograms (kg) of emissions associated with ground level ozone and 110,783 kg of emissions associated with atmospheric acidification. Table 4.1-2 Existing Emissions from Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Carryout Bags in Huntington Beach Ozone Ozone Ozone AA AA AA #of Bags Emissions Emissions Bag Used per Emission (kg) per Emissions Emission (kg) per Emissions Type Year Rate per 1,000 per year Rate per 1,000 per year Bag bags** (kg) Bag bags*** (kg) Single- use 102,198,343 1.0 0.023 2,350.56 1.0 1.084 110,783 Plastic Total 2,351 Total 110,783 Source: Impact rate per bag as statedin Stephen L Joseph,2009;Ecobilan,2004,FRIDGE,2002;Green Cities California MEA,2010, Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011;and,Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, December 2011. "Emissions per 1,000 bags from Ecobilan,2004;Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011;and, Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,December 2011. ""*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;and,Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,December 2011. e. Air Pollution Regulation. Federal and state standards have been established for six criteria pollutants: ozone(03),carbon monoxide(CO),nitrogen dioxide (NO2),sulfur dioxide (S02),particulates less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2_5 respectively),and lead(Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates,hydrogen sulfide,vinyl chloride, and City of Huntington Beach 4.1-5 HB -183- Item 9. - 87 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality visibility-reducing particles. Table 4.1-3 lists the current federal and state standards for criteria pollutants. Table 4.1-3 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Federal Standard California Standard Ozone 0.075 ppm(8-hr avg) 0.09 ppm(1-hr avg) 0.07 ppm(8-hr avg) Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm(8-hr avg) 9.0 ppm(8-hr avg) 35.0 ppm(1-hr avg) 20.0 ppm(1-hr avg) Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb(annual avg) 0.030 ppm(annual avg) 100 ppb(1-hr avg) 0.18 ppm(1-hr avg) Sulfur Dioxide 75 ppb(1-hr avg) 0.04 ppm(24-hr avg) 0.25 ppm(1-hr avg) Lead 1.5 µglm3(annual avg) 1.5 µglm3(calendar qtr) Particulate Matter(PMio) 150 uglm3(24-hr avg) 20 pglm33 annual avg) 50 µglm (24-hr avg) Particulate Matter(PM2s) 15 µglm33 annual avg) 12 uglm3(annual avg) 35 µglm (24-hr avg) ppm=parts per million ppb=parts per billion Orr?=micrograms per cubic meter Source:California Air Resources Board(2010),accessed online January 2012 at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf As described above,Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin,which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air quality standards are met and,if they are not met,to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as being in "attainment" or"non-attainment." The South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for both the federal and state standards for ozone and PMlo• Thus,the SCAQMD is required to implement strategies that would reduce the pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. The Basin is in attainment for the state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, and for carbon monoxide.The non-attainment status is a result of several factors,the primary ones being the naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants,the limited capacity of the local air shed to eliminate pollutants from the air,and the number,type,and density of emission sources within the South Coast Air Basin. Regulations applicable to Manufacturing Facilities. EPA Title V Permit. Title V is a federal program designed to standardize air quality permits and the permitting process for major sources of emissions across the country. The name "Title V"comes from Title V of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments,which requires the EPA to establish a national, operating permit program. Accordingly,EPA adopted regulations[Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,Chapter 1,Part 70 (Part 70)],which City of Huntington Beach 4.1-6 Item 9. - 88 HB -184- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality require states and local permitting authorities to develop and submit federally enforceable operating permit programs for EPA approval. Title V only applies to "major sources." EPA defines a major source as a facility that emits, or has the potential to emit(PTE) any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant(HAP) at levels equal to or greater than the Major Source Thresholds(MST). The MST for criteria pollutants may vary depending on the attainment status (e.g.marginal,serious,extreme) of the geographic area and the Criteria Pollutant or HAP in which the facility is located(EPA Title V Requirement, accessed March 2010). Carryout bag manufacturing facilities that emit any criteria pollutant or HAP at levels equal to or greater than the MST of the local air quality management district would need to obtain,and maintain compliance with,a Title V permit. Local Air Quality Management District's Equipment Permits. Manufacturing facilities may also be required to obtain permits from the local air quality management district. A local air quality management district permit is a written authorization to build,install,alter,replace,or operate equipment that emits or controls the emission of air contaminants,like oxides of nitrogen(NOx),carbon monoxide(CO),fine particulate matter(PM10),oxides of sulfur(SOx), or toxics. Permits ensure that emission controls meet the need for the local region to make steady progress toward achieving and maintaining federal and state air quality standards. The SCAQMD,the local air quality management district serving Huntington Beach,requires operators that plan to build,install,alter,replace,or operate any equipment that emits or controls the emission of air contaminants to apply for,obtain and maintain equipment permits. Equipment permits ensure that emission controls meet the need for the South Coast Region to make steady progress toward achieving and maintaining federal and state air quality standards (as shown in Table 4.1-3) (SCAQMD"Getting Permits',2011). Permits also ensure proper operation of control devices,establish recordkeeping and reporting mechanisms,limit toxic emissions,and control dust or odors. In addition,the SCAQMD routinely inspects operating facilities to verify that equipment has been built and installed as required by the,and to confirm that the equipment operates in compliance with,SCAQMD rules and regulations. Regulations applicable to Delivery Trucks. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles(In-Use)Regulation. On December 12,2008,the ARB approved a new regulation to significantly reduce emissions from existing on-road diesel vehicles operating in California. The regulation requires affected trucks and buses to meet performance requirements between 2011 and 2023. By January 1,2023 all vehicles must have a 2010 model year engine or equivalent. The regulation is intended to reduce emissions of diesel PM, oxides of nitrogen and other criteria pollutants (ARB"Truck and Bus Regulation,updated March 2010). All trucks making deliveries of carryout bags in California will be required to adhere to this regulation. Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling Limit. The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. The regulation applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of California with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. The in-use truck requirements require operators of both in-state and out-of-state registered sleeper berth equipped trucks to manually shut down their engines when ow City of Huntington Beach 4.1-7 HB -185- Item 9. - 89 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality idling more than five minutes at any location within California beginning in 2008 (ARB"Heavy- Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program", updated March 2009). All trucks making deliveries in Huntington Beach are required to comply with the no-idling requirements. 4.1.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance does not include any physical development or construction related activities; therefore,the analysis focuses on emissions related to carryout bag manufacturing processes and truck trips associated with delivering carryout bags to retailers in Huntington Beach. Operational emissions associated with the truck trips to deliver carryout bags to Huntington Beach retailers were calculated using the using the URBEMIS 2007 v. 9.2.4 computer program (Rimpo and Associates,20071). The estimate of operational emissions by URBEMIS includes truck trips(assumed to be heavy trucks-33,000 to 60,000 pounds) and utilizes the trip generation rates based on the increase of truck trips associated with the proposed Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance would create an air quality significant impact if it would: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people The Initial Study (see Appendix A) concluded that only the second and third criteria could potentially result in a significant impact,while the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would result in a less than significant impact with respect to the first and fourth criteria, and would result in no impact with respect to the fifth criterion. Hence,only the second and third criteria are addressed in this section. The SCAQMD has established the following significance thresholds for project operations within the South Coast Air Basin: 55 pounds per day of ROC 0 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO O 150 pounds per day of SOx 0 150 pounds per day of PM10 1 Please note that the California.Emissions Estimator Model(Ca]EEMod),which is normally recommended for use by the SCAQMD,was considered for use as part of the analysis. however,because the truck trips associated with carryout bags were so few compared to larger projects normally analyzed with CalEEMod,the emissions output in CalEEMod did not yield any relevant results(all emissions were listed as 0.0 pounds per day). As stated by SCAQMD,the decision to continue using the URBEMIS model is up to the lead agency or other users(CalEEMod FAQ;www.agmd.gov/r-aleemod/faq.htm). As such,the use of URBEMIS for this analysis is deemed reasonable and conservative. City of Huntington Beach 4.1-8 Item 9. - 90 HB -186- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact AQ-1 A shift toward reusable bags could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production,which has the potential to increase air pollutant emissions. However, the proposed Single-Use Carryout 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 would be Class IV,beneficial. The intent of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is to reduce the amount of single-use carryout bags,and to promote the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. The proposed Ordinance would incrementally reduce the number of single-use plastic carryout bags that are manufactured and would incrementally increase the number of single-use paper and reusable bags manufactured compared to existing conditions. As described in the Setting,emissions associated with single-use paper bag production result in 1.9 times the impact on atmospheric acidification as a single-use plastic bag. On a per bag basis, a reusable carryout bag that is made of LDPE plastic results in three times the atmospheric acidification compared to a single-use plastic bag. Reusable bags may be made of various materials other than LDPE,including cloths such as cotton or canvas. However,because LDPE reusable bags are one of the most common types of reusable bags and are of similar durability and weight(approximately 50 to 200 grams) as other types of reusable bags,this EIR utilizes the best available information regarding specific metrics on a per bag basis to disclose environmental impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance. Further,given the high rate of reuse of all types of reusable bags(usually at least one year, or 52 times),the air pollutant emissions from these bags when compared to plastic and paper carryout bags are expected to be comparable(to the LPDE bag) or lower (Santa Clara County Single-Use Carryout Bag Initial Study,October 2010). Similarly,based on a per bag basis,a single-use paper bag has 1.3 times the impact on ground level ozone formation compared to a single-use plastic bag and a reusable carryout bag that is made of LDPE plastic would result in 1.4 times the ground level ozone formation compared to a single-use plastic bag(Stephen L.Joseph,2009;FRIDGE,2002;and Green Cities California MEA,2010). A reusable bag results in greater impacts to ground level ozone formation and atmospheric acidification than a single-use plastic bag on a per bag basis;however,unlike single-use plastic bags,reusable carryout bags are intended to be used multiple times (at least 125 uses as required by the proposed Ordinance).2 Therefore,fewer total carryout bags would need to be manufactured as a shift toward the use of reusable bags occurs. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description,stores making available paper carryout bags would be required to sell 2 For the purposes of this analysis,it is assumed that reusable bags would be used once per week for a year,or 52 times,before being replaced.However,for the purposes of the Ordinance, reusable bags can be used as many as 125 times. MV City of Huntington Beach or 4.1-9 HB -187- Item 9. - 91 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality recycled paper carryout bags made from 100% recycled material with a 40% post-consumer recycled content to customers for$0.10 per bag. This mandatory charge would create a disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at regulated stores and is intended to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags by consumers in Huntington Beach. The proposed Ordinance may lead to some short-term increase in single-use paper bag use as consumers would be unable to get a free plastic bag while shopping,but may be willing to pay a charge to use paper bags. Based on a mandatory charge of $0.10 per bag, this analysis assumes that the total volume of plastic bags currently used in Huntington Beach(102,198,343 plastic bags per year as shown in Table 2-1)would be replaced by approximately 45% paper bags and 50% reusable bags as a result of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance,as shown in Table 4.1-4. As shown therein,it is assumed that 5% of the existing single-use plastic bags used in Huntington Beach would remain in use since the Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags (e.g.,restaurants) and these retailers would continue to distribute plastic bags after the Ordinance is implemented. Thus,for this analysis it is assumed that 5,109,917 plastic bags would be used in Huntington Beach after implementation of the proposed Ordinance. In addition,it is assumed that approximately 45,989,254 paper bags would replace approximately 45% of the plastic bags currently used in the City. This 1:1 replacement ratio is considered conservative,because the volume of a single-use paper carryout bag(20.48 liters) is generally equal to approximately 150% of the volume of a single-use plastic bag(14 liters),such that fewer paper bags would ultimately be needed to carry the same number of items. Table 4.1-4 Existing Plastic Bag Replacement Assumptions Replacement #of Bags used Per Type of Bag Assumption Year Explanation Because the Ordinance does not apply to Single-use Plastic 5% 5,109,917 all retailers,some single-use plastic bags would remain in circulation. Although the volume of a single-use paper carryout bag is generally 150%of the volume of a single-use plastic bag,such Single-use Paper 45% 45,989,254 that fewer paper bags would be needed to 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 times,it is conservatively Reusable 50% 982,676 assumed that a reusable bag would be used by a customer once per week for one year,or 52 times. Total 52,081,847 In order to estimate the number of reusable carryout bags that would replace 51,099,171 plastic bags(50% of the existing number of plastic bags used in Huntington Beach per year),it is assumed that a reusable carryout bag would be used by a customer once per week for one year (52 times). This is a conservative estimate as a reusable bag,as required by the Ordinance,must have the capability of being used 125 times(see Appendix C for complete Draft Ordinance). City of Huntington Beach 4.1-1 Q Item 9. - 92 HB -188- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality Nevertheless,for this analysis,in order to replace the volume of groceries contained in the 51,099,171 single-use plastic bags that would be removed as a result of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance,an increase of approximately 982,676 reusable bags per year would be purchased by customers at retail stores. Based on the estimate of 982,676 reusable bags,each Huntington Beach resident(191,677 in 2011) would purchase around five reusable bags per year. This analysis assumes that as a result of the proposed Ordinance the existing total volume of groceries currently carried in approximately 102.2 million single-use plastic carryout bags would be carried within approximately 52 million single-use plastic,reusable and single-use paper bags. Table 4.1-5 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. As shown,the increased use of reusable carryout bags in the City would reduce emissions that contribute to ground level ozone by approximately 822 kg per year(a 35% decrease) and atmospheric acidification by approximately 7,310 kg per year (a 7% decrease). Table 4.1-5 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Carryout Bags in Huntington Beach Ozone Ozone Ozone AA AA AA #of Bags Emissions Emissions Bag Used per Emission (kg) per Emissions Emission (kg) per Emissions Type Rate per per year Rate per per year Year* Bag** bags*** (k9) Bag** b1,000 g 00* (kg) Single- use 5,109,917 1.0 0.023 117.52 1.0 1.084 5,539.15 Plastic Single- use 45,989,254 1.3 0.03 1,379.68 1.9 2.06 94,737,86 Paper Reusable 982,676 1.4 0.032 31.45 3.0 3.252 3,195.66 Total 1,529 Total 103,473 Existing 2,351 Existing 110,783 Net Change (822) Net Change (7,310) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4. "Impact rate per bag as stated in Stephen L.Joseph,2009;Ecobilan,2004,FRIDGE,2002,and Green Cities California MEA,2010, Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. "Emissions per 1,000 bags from Ecobilan,2004,Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. Emissions per 1,000 bags from FRIDGF,2002 and Green Cities California MEA,2010;Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. City of Huntington Beach 4.1-11 HB -189- Item 9. - 93 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality As discussed in the Setting,air pollutant emissions from manufacturing facilities are also regulated under the Clean Air Act and would be subject to requirements by the local air quality management district(in Orange County,the SCAQMD). Either a paper bag manufacturing facility or a reusable carryout bag manufacturing facility that emits any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant(HAP)at levels equal to orb eater than the Major Source Thresholds (MST) of the local air quality management district would need to obtain and maintain compliance with a Title V permit. Adherence to permit requirements would ensure that a manufacturing facility would not violate any air quality standard. Manufacturing facilities would also be required to obtain equipment permits for emission sources through the local air quality management district which ensures that equipment is operated and maintained in a manner that limits air emissions in the region. 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 or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. As described above,the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would reduce emissions associated with ozone and atmospheric acidification. Therefore,the proposed ordinance would have a beneficial impact with respect to air quality. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not necessary as impacts would beneficial. Significance After Mitigation. The impact would be beneficial without mitigation. Impact AQ-2 Implementation of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers. However, emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore,operational air quality impacts would be Class f11,less than significant. Long-term emissions associated with the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would include those emissions associated with truck trips to deliver carryout bags(paper and reusable)from manufacturing facilities or distributors to the local retailers in Huntington Beach. The URBEMIS computer program was used to calculate emissions for mobile emissions resulting from the number of trips generated by the proposed ordinance. A temporary increase in single-use paper-bag use and a permanent increase in reusable bag use might lead to an increase in the frequency of truck trips needed to deliver a greater number of these bags to stores in Huntington Beach. However,any increase in truck trips related to paper and reusable bag delivery would be partially offset by the reduction in truck trips related to single-use plastic carryout bag delivery since under the proposed ordinance,plastic bags would be banned and therefore truck delivery would not be required. Nevertheless,as shown in Table 4.1-6, assuming a worst-case scenario that as a result of the proposed project the volume of existing plastic bags would be replaced by approximately 45% paper bags and 50% reusable City of Huntington Beach 4.1-12 Item 9. - 94 Hs -1 ga- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality bags with 5% of the total plastic bags remaining in use,the net increase in truck traffic resulting from the change in bag use would be less than one truck trip per day. Table 4.1-6 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of the Proposed Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Number of Bags Number of Bags Truck Trips Per Truck Trips per Bag Type per Year* per Truck Load** Year Day Single-use Plastic 5,109,917 2,080,000 2.5 0.007 Single-use Paper 45,989,254 217,665 211 0.58 Reusable 982,676 108,862 9 0.025 Total 223 0.61 Existing Truck Trips for Plastic Bags(to be removed) 49 0.13 Net New Truck Trips 174 0.48 Based on worst case scenario estimate of 5%existing plastic bag use in Huntington Beach(approximately 102,198,343 plastic bags per year)to remain,45%conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Huntington beach to paper bags and 50•� conversion to reusable bags(based on 52 uses per year). **City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR(SCH#2010041004),January 2011;and City of Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR(SCH#2011062032),December 2011. As shown in Table 4.1-6,the change in truck traffic as a result of the proposed Ordinance would be a net increase of approximately 0.48 truck trips per day. Although the reduction in single- use plastic bag deliveries would reduce truck trips compared to existing conditions,the increase in single-use paper and reusable bags would cause a negligible net increase.Mobile emissions associated with such an increase in truck traffic are summarized in Table 4.1-7. Table 4.1-7 Operational Emissions Associated with Proposed Ordinance Emissions(lbs/day) Emission Source ROG NO, CO PM10 PM2_5 Mobile Emissions 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.01 0.01 (Truck Traffic) Total Emissions 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.01 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No Source: URBEMIS version 9.2.4 calculations for Truck Trips.See Appendix B for calculations City of Huntington Beach 4.1-13 HB -191- Item 9. - 95 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality As indicated in Table 4.1-7,daily ROG emissions are estimated at<0.01 pounds, daily NOx emissions are estimated at approximately 0.05 pounds,daily PMlo emissions would be approximately 0.01 pounds,and daily PM2_5 emissions would be <0.01 pounds. The incremental increases in ROG,NOx, PMlo,and PM25 emissions associated with the proposed project would be substantially less than the SCAQMD thresholds of 55 pounds per day of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5,550 pounds for CO,and 150 pounds per day of PMlo• Because long-term emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds,impacts would not be significant. Mitigation Measures. Operational emissions associated with the increase in truck traffic as a result of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore,mitigation is not required. Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending carryout bag ordinances,as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0,Environmental Setting,would continue to reduce the amount of single- use carryout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable carryout bags. Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance,such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated air pollutant emissions,while existing and future manufacturing facilities would continue to be subject to federal and state air pollution regulations(see the Setting for discussion of applicable regulations). Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance,other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally change the number of truck trips associated with carryout bag delivery and associated emissions. Six other agencies in South Coast Air Basin region(County of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, City of Manhattan Beach,City of Calabasas, City of Santa Monica, City of Malibu, and the City of Los Angeles) have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. However, based on the incremental increase in air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance(increase of 1/4 pound per day or less of each criteria pollutant),the other ordinances are not expected to generate a cumulative increase in emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds or adversely affect regional air quality. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts would not be significant. City of Huntington Beach 4.1-14 Item 9. - 96 HB -192- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources 4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section analyzes the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance's impacts to biological resources. Both direct impacts associated with the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance and indirect impacts to off-site biological resources are addressed. 4.2.1 Setting a. Huntington Beach Biological Resources. Huntington Beach is located in Orange County's northern coastal area.This area is characterized by broad, sandy beaches backed by low bluffs and mesas,and lowland areas that once held extensive wetlands. There are two mesas within Huntington Beach: Bolsa Chica Mesa to the north and Huntington Beach Mesa to the south. These mesas are separated by the Bolsa Chica Gap,which includes the Bolsa Bay and the Bolsa Chica wetlands.North of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is the Sunset Gap with Anaheim Bay and Huntington Harbour. The following discusses marine waters,plant life,and wildlife for each of the ecological categories of Huntington Beach. Marine Waters. The open waters of Huntington Harbour and Bolsa Bay provide habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrate species that utilize these sheltered waters either during early growth or throughout their lives. Due to the continued dredging within Huntington Harbour, the number of species using the harbor is smaller than in nearby Anaheim Bay; however, some of the commonly found fish in these waters include the deep body anchovy (Anchoa compressa),j acksmelt(Atherinopsis californiensis),topsmelt(Atherinops affinis),and Pacific staghorn sculpin(Leptocottus annatus). In addition,Anaheim Bay is an important nursery area for Pacific halibut(Hippoglossus stenolepis) and diamond turbot(Hypsopsetta guttulata).juvenile fish may also live in the harbor area. Typical aquatic invertebrates found in Huntington Beach would include those found on boat hulls,pilings and floats including bay mussel(Mytilus trossulus),acorn barnacles(Sessilia sp.), and tunicates(Tunicata). Plant Life. The beaches, lowlands,bluffs,and mesas support a variety of plants and animals. The plant communities include coastal strand,coastal salt marsh,freshwater marsh and associated riparian habitat,landscaped ornamental and ruderal areas. These are described below. Coastal Sand Dunes (Coastal Strand). The coastal strand plant communities,found on undisturbed sandy beaches and dunes above the high tide level, are divided into beach and dune communities.Few plants are adapted to survive the harsh conditions of the sandy beaches and dunes due to winds carrying sand and salt, shifting infertile sandy soil, and human disturbance.A few remaining vestiges of the original vegetation remain,consisting of plants such as sea rocket,beach-primrose,and beach morning-glory. Non-native species such as New Zealand spinach,and several species of ice plant,have aggressively pioneered in areas that have been disturbed. Remnants of dunes along Pacific Coast Highway(PCH) and near the Huntington Beach Wetland support several shrub species. These dune shrubs are a mixture of native and non- City of Huntington Beach 4.2-1 HB -193- Item 9. - 97 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources native species. Among the natives are three species of willow(Salix sp.),two species of Baccharis, and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia).Non-natives include various species of saltbrush,ice-plant(Carpobrotus sp.),castor bean(Ricinus communis) and myoporum(Myoporum laetum). Typical low growing plants include coastal goldenbush(Isocoma menziesii),western goldenrod (Solidago lepida),heliotrope (Phacelia sp.),beach primrose (Chamissonia cheiranthifolia) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Where the dune-salt marsh plant communities meet; spiny rush(Juncos acutus) and bulrush (Scirpus robustus) from dense stands in some areas (as between Brookhurst Street and Magnolia Street)while coastal goldenbush forms nearly pure stands in others(e.g.,Brookhurst Street at PCH). Other plants associated with this transitional zone are western goldenrod (Solidago lepida),yerba mansa(Anemopsis californica) and saltgrass. Coastal Salt Marsh. Plants of the coastal salt marsh community grow along the upper reach of the coastal estuarine community where they receive only periodic inundation by sea water. Freshwater streams often flow through this community and serve to dilute the salinity of the seawater. The salt marsh community embodies several distinct components: pickleweed marsh, salt flat, saltwater channel, saltwater pond,and a disturbed component. The dominant plant is common pickleweed(Salicornia bigelovii).Other common plants include fivehook bassia(Bassia hyssopifolia),spear saltbush(Atriplex joaquiniana), saltgrass, and to a lesser extent,alkali health(Frankenia salina).Areas of higher elevation may have been subjected to periodic off-road vehicle traffic and are invaded by ruderal(or non-native weedy) species. Grassland. The undeveloped portions of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and other upland areas to the west of the Bolsa Chica lowlands support grassland communities. Most of the grassland species are exotic,having been introduced early during the Spanish Colonial period,and favored by grazing activities. Species common to the grasslands here include bromes (Bromus sp.),mustard(Brassica sp.),filaree (Erodium sp.),Russian-thistle(Salsola tragus),and cardoon (Cynara cardunculus). Few native species persist,but one can still observe needlegrass (Nassella sp.),owl's clover(Castilleja sp.), and mariposa lily(Calochorhis sp.). Freshwater Marsh.and Associated Riparian Habitats. Elements of this plant community are found in soil depressions and channels that fill and hold fresh water for at least part of the year, (i.e.,Huntington Beach Central Park) and in coastal plains near permanent slow-moving or ponded waters. Some of the plants spring up from the middle of ponds,lakes or streams; others float upon deep water,but most thrive at the margins where the soil is more compact. Typical plants are cattails (Typha sp.),rushes(Juncos sp.), spike-rushes (Eleocharis sp.), duckweed(Lenina sp.),Douglas'water hemlock(Cicuta douglasii),and water smartweed (Pesicaria amphibian). Growing in low elevation sandy soils along waterways are stands of medium to large trees that mature to form dense stands. In such habitats are Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), sandbar willow(Salix exigua),and mulefat(Baccharis salicifolia). An example of this habitat is found near Talbert Lake and at the terminus of the Freeman Creek channel. City of Huntington Beach 4.2-2 Item 9. - 98 HB -194- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Landscaped Ornamental. This community includes areas of ornamental and non-native trees,shrubs,and ground cover associated with urban development. These plant associations are artificial,perpetuated by cultural activities. For instance,Eucalyptus groves are located within portions of the Bolsa Chica area and other locations in the City. Also included are mowed lawns comprised of various non-native grasses,ornamental groundcover, shrubs,and trees. Ruderal. Ruderal vegetation is found in areas frequently disturbed such as oil production areas or along roadsides. Typically,the dominant plant species are highly adaptive and invasive plants,commonly considered to be roadside weeds; however,there are a few native species. Typical native plants are California croton(Croton californicus),telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora),pineapple weed (Amblyopappus pusillus), and tarweeds. Introduced plants are scarlet pimpernel(Anagalis arvensis),wild oats (Avena sp.),bromes,mustards, filarees,foxtail barley(Hordeum sp.),cheeseweed(Malva sp.), sweet-clovers(Melolitus sp.), Russian-thistle,and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). Wildlife. Coastal strand,coastal wetlands, and landscaped ornamental and ruderal areas provide habitat for a variety of wildlife,as described below. Coastal Strand. Coastal strand provides wildlife habitat to reptiles,birds and mammals. Reptiles are limited in both species diversity and abundance in the coastal strand community, and amphibians generally do not occur. The side-blotched lizard(Uta stansburiana) is plentiful away from the outer beaches,and the San Diego (southern) alligator lizard(Elgaria multicarinata) may be found in small numbers in the remnant dune areas. Another reptile that may occur within the coastal strand is the silvery (California) legless lizard (Anniella pulchra). This species is typically found in sand dunes where it buries itself beneath the sand under shrubs. Although it has not been recorded in the Huntington Beach area,it has been found in similar circumstances farther north at Playa Del Rey in Los Angeles County. This species has become increasingly scarce in recent years with accelerated loss of suitable habitat. Birds are the only vertebrates within the coastal strand community that are abundant. Many species of shorebirds and gulls use the upper beach as loafing areas and the intertidal zone and inshore waters for foraging. One species,the California least tern(Sterna antillarum brownii), nests on exposed beaches where,in populous southern California,it is often placed in direct competition with sunbathers for breeding sites. Asa direct result of increased human use of beaches in California,least tern populations have declined significantly. In 1971 it was placed on both the federal and state list of endangered species. Least terns have traditionally nested at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and continue to do so adjacent to the mouth of Talbert Channel and at Bolsa Chica. A few landbirds such as the rock dove(Columba livia),American crow (Corvus bradtyrhynchos), house finch(Carpodacus mexicanus),American kestrel(Falco sparverius), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) utilize the upper beach. Where the remnant dunes support a narrow but dense cover of shrubs,numerous species of perching birds may be found,especially during periods of migration. The most abundant resident species are house finch and European starling. City of Huntington Beach 4.2-3 HB -195- Item 9. - 99 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Mammals within the coastal strand are generally restricted to the narrow zone of fragmented dunes along PCH. The Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)is plentiful here and several species of nocturnal rodents are also expected to occur. It is likely that the native deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus),the introduced house mouse (Mus musculus),and perhaps the introduced Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) occur. Coastal Wetland. Salt marsh communities are among the most productive of ecosystems supporting a large wildlife population. Although most amphibians are not adapted to a marine or estuarine existence, a few species may enter brackish portions of the salt marsh from nearby freshwater habitats. The Baja California treefrog(Psuedacris hypochondriaca) and California (western) toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus) may be present in the freshwater marsh west of Beach Boulevard,as may the introduced bullfrog. The garden(Pacific) slender salamander(Batrachoseps major major) is a widespread inhabitant of moist soils and can thrive even around well-watered lawns and gardens. Historically,this species occupied in riparian woodland along the Santa Ana River,and has since spread into the landscaped residential areas. Several species of lizards and snakes are expected to occur in the coastal wetlands,above areas of tidal flux. Species likely to occur include Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes), side-blotched lizard, southern alligator lizard,California kingsnake(Hypsiglena ochrorliyncha nuclialata),San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and southern Pacific rattlesnake(Crotalus oreganus helleri). Birds are abundant inhabitants of the coastal wetlands. Salt marshes, salt flats, and estuaries nest more species and larger concentrations of birds per unit area than perhaps any other ecosystem intemperate North America. Migrant and wintering waterfowl,waders, shorebirds, gulls and terns constitute the bulk of avian species that utilize estuarine habitats for foraging and resting. Most nesting birds in coastal salt marshes are the smaller,less conspicuous landbirds. One such species, the Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwhichensis beldingi),is a common inhabitant of pickleweed salt marshes. The subspecies of savannah sparrow,however,has been reduced in numbers,due to habitat loss, and is now considered an endangered species by the California Department of Fish and Game. Other birds that nest in the salt marsh are the song sparrow(Melospiza melodia) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)in the upper portions,marsh wren(Cistotlwrus palustris)in the reeds and sedges,and killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) on the salt flats.In the small freshwater marshes,breeding birds likely include the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius plwneiceus), song sparrow and marsh wren. The federal and state endangered California least tern has been observed feeding on mosquito fish in the pond below the SCE power plant and on small marine fish in the Bolsa Chica area. This usually occurs when its chicks are young and small fish may not be readily available elsewhere. The freshwater wetlands have a different character than do saltwater communities, and support a somewhat different mix of species. Although the freshwater drainages and ponds are degraded and consequently do not support bird populations as rich in diversity or number as would healthy areas,occasionally dabbling ducks (Subfamily Anatidae) or long-legged waders such as the black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax) may be found feeding. Additionally,species more typical of other habitats use these areas as a water source for drinking and bathing. Terrestrial species expected around the freshwater wetlands include City of Huntington Beach 4.2-4 Item 9. - 100 HB -1 96- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources black-chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), ash-throated flycatcher(Myiarchus cinerascens),house wren(Troglodytes aedon),common yellowthroat(Geothlypis trichas),brown- headed cowbird(Molothrus ater),and house finch(Carpodacus tnexicanus). The most conspicuous,and perhaps most abundant,mammal in the salt marsh is the Audubon's cottontail. Other mammals presumed to be plentiful here are the black-tailed hare, California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi),Botta's pocket gopher(772omoniys bottae),and several nocturnal rodents,such as the deer mouse,western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys tnegalotis),house mouse,and Norway rat. Predators such as the Virginia opossum(Didelphis virginiana),coyote (Canis latrans),long-tailed weasel(Mustela frenata),red fox(Vulpes vulpes), and striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis) are also likely to be present. Landscaped Ornamental and Ruderal Areas. Human-induced habitats, such as landscaped and ruderal areas,tend to have limited diversity depending upon the structure of the habitat.Examples of such habitats within the General Plan area are non-native woodlands on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Central Park. As these areas are typically found in developed and highly disturbed areas,they are frequently home to common,highly adaptable species. Common amphibians and reptiles found in these types of habitats include the garden slender salamander,Baja California tree frog,western fence lizard, and southern alligator lizard. Bird species found human-induced habitat may include Anna's hummingbird(Calypte anna), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica),American robin(Turdus tnigratorius), northern mockingbird(Mimus polyglottis),European starling (Sturnus vulgaris),and house finch. Where human presence is not as immediate,large eucalyptus trees are often utilized by raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and red-shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus)for perching and perhaps nesting,while the common barn owl frequently lives in large fan palms. b. Sensitive Resources. Sensitive natural communities and special status plant and animal species that may inhabit Huntington Beach are listed in Table 4.2-1. The locations of special-status species and critical habitat documented in the vicinity of the City as listed on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) are mapped on Figures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b. City of Huntington Beach 4.2-5 HB -197- Item 9. - 101 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Table 4.2-1 Natural Communities and Special Status Plant and Animal Species in Huntington Beach Species Status Habitat Requirements and Blooming Period Fed/CA/CNPS Natural Communities Southern Coastal Salt Marsh S2.1 n/a Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian S3.2 n/a Forest Southern Dune Scrub S1.1 n/a Southern Foredunes S2.1 n/a Plants Abronia villosa var.aurita —/—/1B.1 Annual herb;chaparral and coastal scrub;sandy areas. chaparral sand-verbena Aphanisma b/itoides Annual herb that blooms from March to June;occurs in sandy —/—/l B.2 soils from 3 to 1000 feet in coastal bluff scrub,coastal dunes Aphanisma and coastal scrub. Astragalus pycnostachyus var. Perennial herb;coastal salt marsh;within reach of high tide or lanosissimus E/E/1 B.1 protected by barrier beaches,more rarely near seeps on Ventura marsh milk-vetch sandy bluffs. Atriplex coulteri Perennial herb;coastal bluff scrub,coastal dunes,coastal -441 B.2 scrub,valley and foothill grassland;on ocean bluffs, Coulter's saltbush ridgetops, as well as alkaline low places. Atriplex pacifica Annual herb;coastal scrub;coastal bluff scrub; playas; —/—l16.2 South Coast saltscale chenopod scrub;on alkali soils. Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub on alkaline soils; —l—/1 B.2 Davidson's saltscale blooms from April to October. Calystegia sepium ssp.binghamiae —/--/1A Perennial rhizomatous herb;coastal marshes. Santa Barbara moming-glory Centromadia(=Hemizonia)parryi ssp. australls —/—/16 1 Annual herb; margins of marshes and swamps;vernally mesic areas of valley and foothill grasslands;vernal pools. Southern spikeweed Centromadia parryi ssp.australis Annual herb;blooms May to November;occurs in the —1-11 B.1 margins of marshes and swamps,in vernal pools, and in southern tarplant valley and foothill grasslands;ranges from 0 to 1,394 feet. Chotizanthe staticoides —/—! Annual herb;coastal scrub and chaparral; no longer Turkish rugging considered sensitive. Cordylanthus mantimum ssp. Hemiparasitic,annual herb;blooms May through October; mantimum E/E/1 B.2 occurs in coastal dunes,coastal salt marshes and swamp at salt marsh bird's beak elevations ranging from 0 to 98 feet. City of Huntington Beach 4.2-6 Item 9. - 102 HH -198- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Table 4.2-1 Natural Communities and Special Status Plant and Animal Species in Huntington Beach Species Status Habitat Requirements and Blooming Period Fed/CA/CNPS Dudleya multicaulis Perennial herb;chaparral;coastal scrub;valley and foothill —/—/1 B'2 many-stemmed dudleya grassland;in heavy,often clayey soils or grassy slopes. Helianthus nuttald ssp.parishii Perennial rhizomatous herb;marshes and swamps(coastal —I—I1A Los Angeles sunflower salt and freshwater). Juncus acutus ssp.Leopoldii(=var. Perennial rhizomatous herb;coastal dunes (mesic),meadows sphaerocarpus) -_-_/4.2 and seeps(alkaline seeps),and marshes and swamps Southwestern spiny rush (coastal salt). Lasthenia glabrata ssp.coulted Annual herb; blooms February through June;ranges from 3 —/—/1 B.1 to 4000 feet in elevation and occurs in playas,vernal pools, Coulter's goldfields and coastal salt marshes and swamps. Nama stenocarpum Annual or perennial herb; marshes and swamps; lake shores; —/—/2'2 mud Hama river banks;intermittently wet areas. Nasturtium gambellii Rhizomatous,perennial herb; blooms April through E/T/1 B.1 September;ranges from 16 to 1082 feet in elevation and is Gambel's water cress found in freshwater or brackish marshes and swamps,as well as the margins of lakes and streams. Navarretia prostrata Annual herb;coastal scrub;valley and foothill grassland; —/—/1 B.1 vernal pools;alkaline soils in grassland,or in vernal pools; prostrate vernal pool navarretia mesic,alkaline sites. Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata —//1 B.2 Annual herb;coastal dunes. coast woolly-heads Perideridia gairdneri ssp.gairdned Perennial herb;vemally mesic sites; broadleafed upland /—/4.2 forest, chaparral,coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland, ..Gardiner's yampah and vernal pools. Sagittaria sanfordii Perennial rhizomatous herb;marshes and swamps;in —/—/1 B.2 standing or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marsh,and Sanford's arrowhead ditches. Sidalcea neomexicana Perennial herb;alkali playas, brackish marshes,chaparral, /--/2.2 coastal scrub, lower montane conifer forest, Mojavean desert Salt Spring checkerbloom scrub;in alkalki springs and marshes. Suada esteroa Perennial herb that blooms May through October,found in —/—/16.2 estuary seablite coastal salt marshes and swamps from 0 to 16 feet. Symphyotrichum defoliatum Perennial rhizomatous herb;meadows and seeps,marshes —/—/1 B.2 and swamps,coastal scrub,cismontane woodland, montane San Bernardino aster conifer forest,grassland;in vernally mesic grassland or near ditches,streams and springs; disturbed areas. Verbesina dissita T/T/1 B.1 Perennial herb; maritime chaparral and coastal scrub. Crown-beard City of Huntington Beach 4.2-7 HB -199- Item 9. - 103 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Table 4.2-1 Natural Communities and Special Status Plant and Animal Species in Huntington Beach Species Status Habitat Requirements and Blooming Period Fed/CA/CNPS Mammals Many open,semi-arid to and habitats,including conifer and Eumops perotis califomicus deciduous woodlands,coastal scrub,grasslands,chaparral, —/CSC/— etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, hi s, trees,h buildings,western mastiff bat g g and tunnels. Lasiurus cinereus Roosts in dense foliage of large trees. Requires water. --/—/— Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees hoary bat for cover and open areas of habitat edge for feeding. Lasiurusxanthinus Found in valley foothill riparian,desert riparian, desert wash, —/CSC(-- and palm oasis habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly palms. western yellow bat Forages over water and among trees. Microtus californicus stephensi —/CSC/— Tidal marshes. south coast marsh vole Sorex ornatus salicornicus Coastal marshes with dense vegetation and woody debris for —/CSC/—southern California saltmarsh shrew cover. Narrow coastal plains from the Mexican border north to El Pacific pocket mouse _ Segundo, Los Angeles County. Seems to prefer soils of fine E/CSG Perognathus longimembris pacificus alluvial sands near the ocean,but much remains to be learned. Taxidea taxus Open grasslands and edge of scrub and woodland habitats. —/CSC/-- Requires d loose soils for burrowing and shelter. American badger dry, 9 Birds Accipiter cooperi _/WL/_ Woodland,chiefly open,interrupted or marginal type. Nest Cooper's hawk (nesting) sites mainly in riparian growths of deciduous trees,as in g) canyon bottoms and floodplains;also live oaks. Agelaius tricolor —/CSC/-- Prefers riparian habitat, ponds,and other wetland habitats. tricolored blackbird (nesting colony) Colonial nester in emergent vegetation surrounding open y) water. Ardea Herodias _/_/_ Woodland,chiefly of open,interrupted or marginal type. Nest great blue heron (nesting colony) sites mainly in riparian growths of deciduous trees,as in y) canyon bottoms on river flood-plains;also live oaks. —/CSC/— Burrow sites in open dry annual or perennial grasslands, Athene cunicularia (burrow sites, deserts and scrublands characterized by low growing some wintering vegetation. Also inhabits anthropogenic habitats such as burrowing owl g campuses,golf courses,cemeteries,airports,and grazed sites) pastures. Open grasslands,sagebrush flats,desert scrub,low foothills Buteo regalis —/WU-- &fringes of pinyon juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ferruginous hawk (wintering) ground squirrels,and mice. Population trends may follow lagomorph population cycles. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T/CSC/— Sandy beaches,salt pond levees or shores of large alkali western snowy plover (nesting) lakes. Sandy,gravelly or friable soils required for nesting. Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nests&forages in Circus cyaneus --/CSC/-- grasslands,from salt grass in desert sink to mountain northern harrier (nesting) cienagas. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C/E Dense riparian woodlands of cottonwood and willow abutting Westin slow-moving water,with a thick understory for nesting and western yellow-billed cuckoo (nesting) foraging. Cypseloides niger --/CSC/— Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to black swift (nesting) waterfalls in deep canyons and sea-bluffs above the surf. City of Huntington Beach Ir 4.2-8 Item 9. - 104 HB -200- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Table 4.2-1 Natural Communities and Special Status Plant and Animal Species in Huntington Beach Species Status Habitat Requirements and Blooming Period Fed/CA/CNPS Colonial nester,with nest sites situated in protected beds of Egretta thula —/—/_ dense tules. Rookery sites situated close to foraging areas: snowy egret (nesting colony) marshes,tidal-flats,streams,wet meadows,and borders of lakes. Elanus leucurus —/FP/— Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks;river Westin bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. white-tailed kite (nesting) Grasslands, meadows,marshes for foraging. Freshwater marshes,wet meadows,and shallow margins of Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus _ saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water -/T,FP/ g year depths of about 1 inch that does not fluctuate during the California black rail P and dense vegetation for nesting habitat. Nycticorax nyctiorax _/ / Colonial nester,usually in trees,occasionally in tule patches. black crowned night-heron (nesting colony) Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas:lake Y) margins,mud-bordered bays,marshy sots. Pandion haliaetus —fWL/-- Ocean shore, bays,fresh-water lakes,and larger streams. os re (nesting) Large nests built in tree-tops within 15 miles of a good fish- producing Y body of water. Passerculu sandwhicensis beldingi Coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara south through San —/E/— Diego County. Nests in Salicomia sp.on and about margins Belding's savannah sparrow of tidal flats. Pelecanus erythrorhynchos —/CSC/-- Colonial nester on large interior lakes. Nests on large lakes, American white pelican (nesting colony) Providing safe roosting and breeding places in the form of Y) well-sequestered islets. D/D,FP— Pelecanus occidentalis califomicus (nesting colony Nests on rocky coastal islands and forages in near shore California brown pelican &communal coastal waters and channels of estuaries and lagoons. roosts Polioptila califomica califomica Obligate, permanent resident of low coastal sage scrub on T/CSC/-- flat or gently sloping terrain bellow 2500 feet. coastal California gnatcatcher 9 Y P 9 Rallus longirostris levipes Coastal salt marshes; nests primarily in cordgrass and E/E,FP/— salicornia and foarges in higher marsh vegetation and along light-footed clapper rail mudflat interfaces and tidal creeks. Colonial nester,primarily in riparian and other lowland Riparia riparia —/T habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical banks/cliffs with bank swallow (nesting) fine-textured/sandy soils near streams,rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Rynchops niger --/CSC/— Nests on gravel bars, low islets,and sandy beaches, in black skimmer (nesting colony) unvegetated sites. Nesting colonies usually less than 200 Y) airs. Stemula antillarum browni E/E, colon FP/— Nests along coast from San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California least tern (nes tin California. Nests on sandy beaches,alkali flats,landfills or g Y) paved areas. Summer resident of cottonwood-willow forest,oak woodland, Vireo bellii pusillus E/E shrubby thickets,and dry washes with willow thickets at the (nesting) edges. This species prefers dense willow-dominated riparian least Bell's vireo ( es g) habitat with lush understory vegetation where they nest in shrubs or small trees and glean insects off vegetation. Reptiles&Amphibians Actinemys marmorata Rivers, ponds,freshwater marshes;nests in upland areas Pacific(=western)pond turtle —/CSC/-- (sandy banks or grassy open fields)up to 1640 feet from water. City of Huntington Beach pr 4.2-9 HB -201- Item 9. - 105 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources Table 4.2-1 Natural Communities and Special Status Plant and Animal Species in Huntington Beach Species Status Habitat Requirements and Blooming Period Fed/CA/CNPS Occurs in dune scrub, coastal scrub, chaparral, pine-oak Anniela pulchra pulchra woodland,oak woodland, and riparian woodland. Requires Silvery(California)legless lizard —/CSC loose soil for burrowing,moisture,warmth, and plant cover. Burrows in washes,dune sand,loose soil near bases of slopes,and near permanent or temporary streams. Low-elevation coastal scrub,chaparral, and valley and foothill Aspidoscelis hyperythra hardwood habitats. Prefers washes and other sandy areas orangethroat whiptail —/CSC/— with patches of brush and rocks. Perennial plants necessary for its major food:termites. Clearings in riparian woodlands,lowlands along sandy Phrynosoma blainvilli washes with scattered low bushes;open areas for sunning, coast horned lizard —/CSC/— bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial,and abundant supply of ants and other insects. Fish Eucycloglobius newberryi E/CSC Brackish water habitats along the California coast from San Tidewater goby Diego county to Del Norte county. Invertebrates Branchinecta sandiegonensis _ Endemic to San Diego and Orange County mesas. Vernal -/ San Diego fairy shrimp Pools. Cicindela gabbii Estuaries and mudflats along the coast of southern California. /--1— Generally found on dark-colored mud in the lower zone. western tidal-flat tiger beetle Occassionally found on dry saline flats of estuaries. Areas adjacent to non-brackish water along the coast of Cicindela hirticollus gravida California from San Francisco Bay to northern Mexico. —1—/— Clean,dry,light-colored sand in the upper zone. sandy beach tiger beetle Subterranean larvae prefer moist sand not affected by wave action. Cicindela latesignata latesignata --/—/— Mudflats and beaches in coastal southern California. western beach tiger beetle Inhabits marine shoreline,from central California coast south Cicindela senilis frosti _ to the salt marshes of San Diego. Also found at Lake senile tiger beetle —/—/ Elsinore. Inhabits dark-colored mud in the lower zone and dried salt pans in the upper zone. Coastal sand dune habitat,from Bodega Head in Sonoma Coelus globosus _ County south to Ensenada, Mexico. Inhabits foredunes and globose dune beetle -/—/ sand hummocks. Burrows beneath sand surface and is most common beneath dune vegetation. Roosts in wind-protected tree groves(eucalyptus, Monterey Danaus plexippus —/—)— pine, cypress)with nectar and water sources nearby. monarch butterfly (overwintering) Species is common in general,but overwintering habitat protected by Santa Barbara County. Panoquina errans Southern California coastal salt marshes. Requires moist salt grass for larval development. wandering(=saitmarsh)skipper 9 Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea —1—/-- Coastal sand dunes in Los Angeles County. Dorothy's El Segundo dune weevil Tryonia imitator Coastal lagoons,estuaries and salt marshes from Sonoma /_/— County south to San Diego County. Found only in mimic tryonia(=Califonria permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types. brackishwater snail) Able to withstand a wide range of salinities. E'=Endangered,-T'=Threatened, `CSC'=Califomia Species of Special Concern;'FP'=Fully Protected,-WL'=Watch List,• D'_ Delisted. Natural Communities include State Rank. Sources:City of Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element;CDFG 2011a;CDFG 201lb,CDFG 2003. n/a=not applicable City of Huntington Beach 4.2-10 Item 9. - 106 xB -202- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Beg Ordinance EIR Saction4.2 Biological Resources i aw51 erden i9 i t Y'�Gy r'e ja Y i, V is Park t ;Si f ♦ 4 ��ti Ft. Z� �I ♦ 1 r _}5-Mlle Radius Buffer On.a OClty of Huntington Beech Plenls 1 ' � P`2 Ccultefe goldfields ♦ COuitena eeltbush Los A amEoa - leGar dan.Grove ' t - _ ',`s � � �Bevitlaon'e seltscela --r- t 22 y2 5 :.=r N�, •� &53 Los Angeles a ssunflo e 1 Las Angeles sunflower F�W!Salt Spring checkerbloom • ♦ �.. `z_ Wes6ni -s — M San Bernardino aster rp!j Senford's arrowhead N __9j4 Santa Berbera morning-glory away ell - South Coast saltscale _.. Ventura Marsh milk-vetch ephan sma J. _ DW chepenel send-verbena .-V most woolly-heads 5 Sus 1 n- fifY� �. �' yt+ estuary eeebllte t4@p''yi ,`� ®mutl name meddudleya t 82L7 prostrate vernal pool nave rretle �t 7 k -7 rY j Fount InV Iley �yr;s r7,lJh t a " { t f.'.H.W..sett marsh bird's-bask t rfCi7rr -r d�7„ 7 a s =7 southern torpent Q ;#k+�i* ,y: Natural Communities t 4 I try r ,1 r 9Y t i r Southern Cotton Salt Marsh 6oulhern Cottonwood Willow Ri eden Forest % ilhi�tf Ij P o r`St'1 rt OEhA P M Southern Dune Scrub I=Southern Foradunes o- Pf�Ir ^'1��� fro t1 ,lei 'Hwdliil, ^ W'ar +Ate, r.�V�PFI'P#"yi Ir' ' 1 p',x�K,i � f;r, Nz; 7j^,rl r wl e u 0 0.9 1.8 Wes HAAA untih Moan;Beach y 4M1 rah # er �-♦ r y�� 9 fly as� �. _�, k ' PuI k l I t r.Vl# «IIII I'"f rnk �I �,• i v� i �91 �'d� th � �;` �I •a 7 k... - ste Mesa; I z` t, Y�`� ,a h• d�} rya +1 p, t p I atil ~� a � y,4#'��� ID,s I"'t #i�� ht� �� � ' / tr'"r� z t t. �r .,,t7} a( aaYJ� �3�+a4 riff � a t-au � �S,�t � 6• „ . .'�e.� S, ♦r SeI1SIt1Ve Pistils and NaturalCommunities ^7 p ewpod each Reported b the U 1��tr',� t I�1✓+!�^I ♦�r,�il t�aN.,r i'i��il�+ ,rn 7lIl FI I �r'�7;� ���.-i t4 is 1-hq 'I��YY.�yn[p C.,��k, ° , Y '� �idi"r�""te°'I'}f4"4J r ^,4i!reYi� �'d,����Tt}��k .yl�t#'���11 aid ,. 7t��� -. r� � -� �7.tf "�+��'° ?"�w{r'',�.�,J..� � 6 •• ;tr;i a-Rr;e.^.ri California Natural t „b «a U �tixrt h n a �� � {3 t Apr Diversity Database {u s�.�^'1 .t ✓X Y�'�� �' P L- dl{� i>ryt y � li r�`��u�IH,M�i{id � '�";h � as F ���' w'^';Y V^, i r � {�•,1lI V � � r� �. f Scura¢a.Cep rrke Nature/Div y Delab—,December 2011,U.S Bur of the Census TIGER 2000 date,and ESRI,207 f.Ivet a ersrspresenf eppro meN bcetions where species maybe lound. Figure 42-1 a e�~F Clfy of Hunffngfon Beach I I� r-r CD I M•-� Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag ordinance EIR - MO So tion4.2 Biological Resources w hrevVals�'� - t 5-Mile Radius Buffer 1 `• � ,' _�_ _ \l Q City of Huntington Beech ill ♦ �Gypresa >1 Vllis Park Animals American badger r• �.� \ "t F7;n Belding's savannah sparrow • •�``. yi ®Californla black rail Canto Blgnel I -- m CeHornle brown pelcon i Yr California least tam ♦ s - `♦ \\ j I ®Dorothy'a El Segundo Dune weevil ✓ f F- 7�ff ` Or I,ql. Orange t15 i!' l-- -�. t�Son Diego fairy shrimp 7 • ' 4,.. —� r "• \� �••• black skermer -- • ! `v` ���t. ♦ I- M bumewing owl eusrden Grove", I m most homed lizard • 22 42 v��*�. j/ - coastal California gnatmtoher ®ferruginous hawk ®globose dune beelia • �� r/ -� iN stminster `s—• green Curie _��"^ J Cl - LLL�����... - ----�•--'7 - r� I .. hoary bet fr�1lIg hl-footed oIapp.r.11 r j - - i - --- --- ------—I ��--- T u ante mlmia t ryonle(=Calfomia bracklahwater snail) Idw.y GillI ®monarch butterfly AdR 7 y $GetB,a tt• ®orengelhrost wh 1ptaii osprey EEDB ndybeeohtiger beetle Yp,•.!.'°M'•,,4 q};t}�f�� ,p k,�;:' r r'. �d$1 ( �• - senile tiger beetle }Sn"I south most marsh vole F=q southern California sallmarsh shrew air. S'VM' r' ii r t `Su seLBeefi { •� - P!!qtrioolored blackbird wendedng(=seltmorsh)skipper N _R1 r" .5" - �rl llllll� l Foun InV lley �• _ 11 • Ij :9 wastem beach tigar beetle wastem mastlff bar r 7 - s t f�lrh )'Y `?k1F. f'r�dr M.rM f ".I f 'fir t wastempond lover p snowy plover f7L7 western tidal-flat tiger bealle ,�5 t ff9'0t p �+ ®wastem yellow bat * white-tailed Mre I�x� 7 �� Critical Habitat •y^ ,�tt,, 2i � y/- t 1( ////"' , r7.11 Coastal Catifomis gnaicatcher FCH ill San Diego fairy shrimp FCH 0M Wsararn Snowy Plover FCH CNDDS suppressed records!nth...quads- ��$r � �Western IldOl-flel tiger beetle. Call OFG to gel the sec - 1 llq�N .fs r • I- i,� r 1! 1 I .c.? 4 ti H fights P 1Nc locelbn of1h.se aenallNea p eias.1F � Sn 0 0.9 1.8 Miles nN A�; si a �iS�ti�ty z�w #v x - QI 1V�� S � 1 Jy � 1r It si, + � i' 't, � ;: a �'=! �• !'fit t,7rl i!�'31���ri f$ ��. � ss • — -.`^^'"'- —- S1t1V e l�nln1a15 an d nit x e Af� o Critical Habitat 4N�, hr {n' raj 1 5 ♦�l r u�f 1, 9 F t f l�'��1 4 Reported by the �, �j'.rt�a�tv`Ih yy f&"6', �+:' l r" qt 8i,+•"r Ix,,J` I'A. ' a ,.• I� ° � Iy California Natural lgfl - F � '�✓ A r,� ,.r � ul dr,-fiF_tt'r.t!. F , H, . Diversity Database and h 1 aa3 r �`a"� iK f!✓4 "���Gli lisp ��tfii� M,,„, hY�ti 4illil.� �,��,�. f �f, r� 'i,d'tli�llf�� rL„ ��` US Fish and Wildlife Service Soumas:C.M.W.Natural versdy Date ass,Decembar20rr,U.S.Bureru of the Census77G R 2000 date,en SR/,2077.Npfe:McMers represent eppr mefp rot pnJ where species maybe round.Creip habdef shown is efmosf re ffy eve!!e le ft. Figure 4.2-1b U.S.FINS(Oclabar,201 1 ).Check 110 U.S.FW5 a.Fade.!Raplsrs,'cronfirm. rCity of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources c. Carryout Bags and Biological Resources. Carryout bags can affect biological resources either as a result of litter that enters the storm drain system and ultimately into coastal and marine environments. Single-Use plastic carryout bags enter the biological environment primarily as litter. This can adversely affect terrestrial animal species,and marine species that ingest the plastic bags (or the residue of plastic bags) or become tangled in the bag(Green Cities California MEA,2010). Based on the data collected for the Ocean Conservancy's Report from September 2009 Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup Day,approximately 11% of total debris items collected were plastic bags (Ocean Conservancy,April 2010). Over 260 species of wildlife, including invertebrates,turtles,fish,seabirds and mammals,have been reported to ingest or become entangled in plastic debris. Ingestion or entanglement may result in impaired movement and feeding,reduced productivity,lacerations,ulcers,and death(Laist,1997; Derraik and Gregory,2009). Ingested plastic bags affect wildlife by clogging animal throats and causing choking,filling animal stomachs so that they cannot consume real food,and infecting animals with toxins from the plastic (Green Cities California MEA,2010). In addition to affecting wildlife through physical entanglement and ingestion,plastic debris in the marine environment has been known to absorb and transport polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phthalates,and certain classes of persistent organic pollutants (POPS) (Mato,Y.,Isobe,T., Takada,H.,et al.,2001;and,Moore,C.J.;Lattin,G.L.,A.F.Zellers.,2005). Single-use paper carryout bags are also released into the environment as litter. However,they generally have less impact on wildlife because they are not as resistant to breakdown as is plastic;therefore,they are less likely to cause entanglement. In addition, although not a healthy food source, if single-use paper bags are ingested, they can be chewed effectively and may be digested by many animals. Reusable bags can also be released into the environment as litter. However,because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags,reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA,2010). In addition,since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times (in accordance with the proposed Ordinance),reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use carryout bags. As such,reusable bags are less likely to enter the marine environment as litter. Thus,reusable bags are less likely to enter the environment as litter compared to single-use plastic or paper bags. d. Regulatory Setting. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal,state, and local authorities under a variety of statutes and guidelines. Primary authority for general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the state under CEQA and also has direct jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts,the CDFG and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also have direct regulatory authority over species formally listed as Threatened or Endangered. The U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has regulatory authority over specific biological resources,namely wetlands and waters of the United States,under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act(CWA). The USACE also has jurisdiction over rivers and harbors through Section 10 of the CWA. Waters of the State fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFG City of Huntington Beach 4.2-15 HB -205- Item 9. - 109 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources through the CFGC and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through Section 401 of the CWA. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Plants or animals have"special-status" due to declining populations,vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special-status species are classified in a variety of ways, both formally (e.g.State or Federally Threatened and Endangered Species) and informally ("Special Animals"). The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)share responsibility for implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act,with the USFWS focused on terrestrial and freshwater species and the NMFS focused on marine species. The USFWS is also responsible for regulation of bird species listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668). The CDFG protects a wide variety of special status species through the CFGC. Under the CFGC,species may be formally listed and protected as Threatened or Endangered through the California Endangered Species Act(Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et.seq.). The CFGC also protects Fully Protected species,California Species of Special Concern(CSC),all native bird species(Fish and Game Code sections 3503,3503.5,and 3511), and rare plants under the Native Plant Protection Act(Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). 4.2.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Chapter 1,Section 21001(c) of CEQA states that it is the policy of the state of California to: "Prevent the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to mans activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels,and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities." Environmental impacts relative to biological resources may be assessed using impact significance criteria encompassing checklist questions from the CEQA Guidelines and federal,state,and local plans, regulations,and ordinances. Project impacts to flora and fauna may be determined to be significant even if they do not directly affect rare, threatened,or endangered species. The proposed Ordinance would create a significant impact to biological resources if it would: I. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service? 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish.and Wildlife Service? 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal., etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? City of Huntington Beach 4.2-16 Item 9. - 110 HB -206- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Initial Study (see Appendix A) concluded that only the first three criteria could potentially result in a significant impact,while the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would result in no impact with respect to the fourth through sixth criteria. Hence,only the first three criteria are addressed in this section. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact BIO-1 The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of paper and reusable bags within Huntington Beach. However,the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to 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. This is a Class IV,beneficial,effect. 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,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. However,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. As described in Section 2.0,Project Description,typical single-use plastic bags weigh approximately five to nine grams and are made of thin(less than 2.25 mils thick)high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Hyder Consulting,2007). Post-use from a retail store, a customer may reuse a single-use plastic bag at home,but eventually the bags are disposed in the landfill or recycling facility or discarded as litter. Although some recycling facilities handle plastic bags, most reject them because they can get caught in the machinery and cause malfunctioning,or are contaminated after use. Only about 5% of the plastic bags in California and nationwide are currently recycled(US EPA,2005;Green Cities California MEA,2010;and Boustead,2007). The majority of single-use plastic bags end up as litter or in the landfill.Even those collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter due to their light weight(Green Cities California MEA,2010). Single-use plastic bags that become litter can enter storm drains and watersheds from surface water runoff or may be blown directly into the ocean by the wind. As described in the Setting,when single-use plastic bags enter coastal habitats marine species can ingest them(or the residue of plastic bags) or may become entangled in the bag(Green Cities California MEA,2010). Ingestion or entanglement in single-use plastic bags can result in choking,reduced productivity,lacerations,ulcers, and death to sensitive species in the marine City of Huntington Beach 4.2-17 HB -207- Item 9. - III Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources environment,including sea turtles,seals,whales, otters,or bird species. Single-use paper grocery bags also have the potential to enter the marine environment as litter. Paper grocery bags are typically produced from kraft paper and weigh anywhere from 50 to 100 grams,depending on whether or not the bag includes handles(AEA Technology,2009). A paper bag weighs substantially more(by approximately 40 to 90 grams) than single-use plastic bags. Because of the weight,biodegradability of the materials,and recyclability, single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags(Green Cities California MEA,2010). In addition,because single-use paper bags are not as resistant to breakdown, there would be less risk of entanglement if entering the marine environment compared to single-use plastic bags. In addition,although not a healthy food source,if ingested,a single-use paper bag can be chewed effectively and may be digested by many marine animals (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Thus,although single-use paper bag litter . may enter coastal habitats and affect sensitive species in the marine environment,the impacts would be less than those of single-use plastic bags. Reusable bags may also become litter and enter the marine environment;however,these bags differ from the single-use bags in their weight and longevity. Reusable bags can be made from plastic or a variety of cloth such as vinyl or cotton. Built to withstand many uses,reusable bags weigh at least ten times what a single-use plastic bag weighs and two times what a single-use paper bag weighs,therefore restricting the movement by wind. Reusable bags are typically reused until worn out through washing or multiple uses,and then typically disposed either in the landfill or recycling facility. Because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags,reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single- use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA,2010). In addition,since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times(in accordance with the proposed Ordinance), reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use carryout bags. As such,reusable bags are less likely to enter the marine environment as litter. Therefore, reusable bags would generally be expected to result in fewer impacts to sensitive species and habitats than single-use plastic and paper carryout bags. The proposed Ordinance would reduce plastic bag usage by 95%compared to existing conditions(from 102.2 million to 5.1 million bags annually), and would reduce total bag use by 49% (to 52 million plastic,single-use paper,and reusable bags).This reduction in bags would be expected to generally reduce litter-related impacts to sensitive species,plant communities, and coastal wetland areas. Therefore sensitive species such as sea turtles,mammals,and bird species would benefit from the proposed Ordinance,as would coastal and marine ecosystems, which would reduce the amount of litter that could enter the marine environment. Impacts would be beneficial. Mitigation Measures. As the impact would be beneficial,mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to sensitive species as a result of the proposed ordinance would be beneficial without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending canyout bag ordinances, as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting,would continue to reduce the amount of single- use carryout bags,and promote a shift toward reusable carryout bags. This shift would generally have beneficial effects with respect to sensitive biological resources. At least six other City of Huntington Beach 4.2-18 Item 9. - 112 HB -208- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources agencies in Los Angeles region(County of Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach,Los Angeles,Malibu,Manhattan Beach,and Santa Monica) have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance,these other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally reduce the number of plastic bags entering the environment,including the Pacific Ocean,as litter.These other ordinances would be expected to have similar beneficial effects.Therefore,there would be no cumulative impacts related to biological resources. City of Huntington Beach 4.2-19 HB -209- Item 9. - 113 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section analyzes the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance's impacts related to global climate change. The analysis focuses on manufacturing,transportation and disposal of carryout bags as these are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. 4.3.1 Setting a. Overview of Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called een grhouse gases(GHGs). Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2),methane(CH4),nitrous oxides(N20,;),fluorinated gases,and ozone. GHG are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases,CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. However,it is believed that emissions from human activities,particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The rate of global climate change(GCC)has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. However, scientists have observed an unprecedented acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations(United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[IPCC],November 2007). Current annual anthropogenic GHG emitted from the world,United States, and California are listed in Table 4.3-1. Table 4.3-1 Annual Anthropogenic GHG Emissions Worldwide United States California 40,000 MM CO2e 7,054 MM CO2e 492 MM CO2e MM=million metric tons Source: IPPC,2007,USEPA,April 2008,CEC, CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent December 2006 California is the second largest emitter of GHGs among states and,if California were a country,it would be the sixteenth highest emitter among countries(AEP,2007). Out of the 492 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e 1)produced in California(7% of U.S.total),41%is associated with transportation. Electricity generation is the second largest source,contributing 22% of the state's GHG emissions(CEC,December 2006). Most,81%,of California s 2004 GHG Carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)is a quantity that describes,for a given mixture and amount of GHGs,the amount of CO2(usually in metric tons;million metric tons[megatonne]=MMTCO2e=terragram[Tg]CO2 Eq; 9,000 MMT= gigatonne)that would have the same global warming potential(GWP)when measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). City of Huntington Beach 4.3-1 Item 9. - 114 H -210- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions emissions(in terms of CO2e)were CO2 produced from fossil fuel combustion,with 2-8% from other sources of CO2,5.7% from methane,and 6.8% from nitrous oxide(CEC,December 2006). b. Effects of Global Climate Change. GCC has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21St century than were observed during the 20th century. A warming of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade is projected, and there are identifiable signs that global warming could be taking place,including substantial ice loss in the Arctic(IPCC,2007). According to the California Energy Commissions (CEC) Draft Climate Action Team Biennial Report,potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise,more extreme heat days per year,more high ozone days,more large forest fires,and more drought years (CEC,March 2009). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects reported by an array of studies that could be experienced in California as a result of global climate change. Air Quality. Higher temperatures,conducive to air pollution formation,could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect,and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions,the potential for large wildfires could increase, which,in turn,would further worsen air quality. However,if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter,rather than drier conditions,the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires,thereby ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally,severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths,illnesses,and asthma attacks throughout the state(CEC,March 2009). Water SuUply. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of GCC on future water supplies in California. Studies have found that,"considerable uncertainty about precise impacts of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain,until we have more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns,timing,and intensity will change' (California Department of Water Resources [DWR],2006). For example, some studies identify little change in total annual precipitation in projections for California (California Climate Change Center [CCCC],2006). Other studies show substantially more precipitation(DWR,2006). Even assuming that climate change leads to long-term increases in precipitation, analysis of the impact of climate change is further complicated by the fact that no studies have identified or quantified the runoff impacts that such an increase in precipitation would have in particular watersheds (CCCC,2006). Also,little is known about how groundwater recharge and water quality will be affected(Id.). Higher rainfall could lead to greater groundwater recharge,although reductions in spring runoff and higher evapotranspiration could reduce the amount of water available for recharge (lbid.). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR,2006) report on climate change and effects on the State Water Project(SWP), the Central Valley Project,and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta concludes that"[c]limate change will likely have a significant effect on City of Huntington Beach 4.3-2 HB -211- Item 9. - 115 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions California's future water resources... [and]future water demand." DWR also reports that "much uncertainty about future water demand [remains], especially [for]those aspects of future demand that will be directly affected by climate change and warming. While climate change is expected to continue through at least the end of this century, the magnitude and,in some cases, the nature of future changes is uncertain" (DWR,2006). This uncertainty serves to complicate the analysis of future water demand,especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood (DWR,2006). DWR adds that"[i]t is unlikely that this level of uncertainty will diminish significantly in the foreseeable future." Still,changes in water supply are expected to occur, and many regional studies have shown that large changes in the reliability of water yields from reservoirs could result from only small changes in inflows (Kiparsky,2003;DWR, 2006; Cayan,2006, Cayan,D.,et al,2006). H dy rology. As discussed above,climate changes could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall,rainfall, and snow pack;the intensity and frequency of storms;flood hydrographs (flash floods,rain or snow events,coincidental high tide and high runoff events);sea-level rise and coastal flooding;coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. Sea level rise may be a product of climate change through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm and melting of ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California's water supply. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities,including levees,to handle storm events. Agriculture. California has a$30 billion agricultural industry that produces half of the country's fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However,if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail,water demand could increase;crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply;and greater ozone pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes,bloom or ripen,and thereby affect their quality(CCCC,2006). Ecosystems and Wildlife. Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise as discussed previously:1.0-4.5T (0.6-2.5°C) in the next 50 years,and 2.2-10T(1.4-5.8°C) in the next century,with substantial regional variation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions,and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level could rise as much as two feet along most of the U.S.coast. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecology cal events; (2) geographic range; (3) species' composition within communities;and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage(Parmesan,2004;Parmesan,C. and H. Galbraith, 2004). In addition,increased CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans could increase the acidity of the oceans and cause direct and indirect effects on organisms and their habitats such as coral reefs(The Royal Society,2005). City of Huntington Beach 4.3-3 Item 9. - 116 HB -212- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions While the above mentioned potential impacts identify the possible effects of climate change at a global and potentially statewide level,in general scientific modeling tools are currently unable to predict what impacts would occur locally. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags. Carryout bags have the potential to contribute to the generation of GHGs either through emissions associated with manufacturing process,truck trips delivering carryout bags to retailers or through disposal during landfill degradation. Each is summarized below. Manufacturing Process. The manufacturing process to make carryout bags requires fuel and energy consumption which creates GHG emissions including CO2,CH4,N20x,fluorinated gases, and ozone. In addition,fertilizers that are used on crops for resources such as cotton or pulp which are then utilized in the manufacturing of carryout 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 emitter of GHGs due to the high volume of fuel and energy consumption that is used during the process. Truck Trips. Delivery trucks that transport carryout bags from manufacturers or distributors to the local retailers in Huntington Beach also create GHG emissions. GHG emissions from truck trips result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels and include CO2, CH4,and N20. As discussed in the Transportation/Circulation section of the Initial Study(see Appendix A),based on a baseline population estimate in Huntington Beach of approximately 191,677 persons and a statewide estimate of approximately 533 plastic bags used per person per year,retail customers in the City of Huntington Beach currently use an estimated 102,198,343 plastic bags per year. Assuming 2,080,000 plastic bags per truck load(City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011;refer to Appendix A), this number of plastic bags would require approximately 49 truck trips per year to deliver these plastic carryout bags in Huntington Beach. Disposal/Degradation. Once disposed of by customers,carryout bags that are not recycled are deposited to a landfill where they are left to decompose and degrade. Depending on the type and materials used,a carryout bag will degrade at various rates. When carryout bag materials degrade in anaerobic conditions at a landfill,CH4 is emitted. This contributes to GCC(Green Cities California MEA,2010). GHG Emission Rates per Bag. Various studies have estimated GHG emissions for the different carryout bags(single-use plastic,paper or reusable bags)to determine a per bag GHG emissions rate. The Boustead Report(2007)compared single-use plastic and paper carryout bags and assumed that one paper bag could carry the same quantity of groceries as 1.5 plastic bags. Based on the Boustead Report(2007), 1,500 single-use plastic bags would generate 0.04 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(CO2e) as a result of manufacturing,transportation, and disposal. Based on the Scottish Report(AEA Technology,2005),through the manufacturing,transportation,and disposal of a single-use paper bag,GHG emissions result in 3.3 times the emissions compared to the manufacturing,use and disposal of a single-use plastic bag. Thus,using the single-use plastic bag GHG emissions rate of 0.04 CO2e per L500 from the Boustead Report, single-use paper bags would emit 0.132 CO2e per 1,000 bags. If only used Now City of Huntington Beach 4.3--4 HB -213- Item 9. - 117 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions once,the manufacturing,use and disposal of a reusable LDPE carryout bag results in 2.6 times the GHG emissions of a single-use HDPE plastic bag(AEA Technology,2005). Thus,reusable LDPE carryout bags would emit 0.104 CO2e per 1,000 bags (if used only once) (Stephen L. Joseph,2009;AEA Technology,2005;Ecobilan,2004;Green Cities California MEA,2010;and, City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011). However, it should be noted that if used over 20 times, a reusable LDPE carryout bag results in 0.1 times the GHG emissions of a single-use HDPE plastic bag(AEA Technology,2005). The analysis used above uses the LDPE carryout bag as a representation of reusable bags in evaluating greenhouse gas impacts. There is no known available Life Cycle Assessment that evaluates all types of reusable bags (canvas,cotton,calico,etc.) with respect to potential GHG emissions. However,given the high rate of reuse by all types of reusable bags (up to 125 uses, as defined in the proposed Ordinance),the GHG emissions from these bags,when compared to the single-use plastic and paper carryout bags,are expected to be comparable to the LPDE bag or lower. Table 4.3-2 lists the current GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing,transportation and disposal of carryout bags in Huntington Beach using the per bag GHG emissions rates discussed above and the estimated existing single-use plastic carryout bags used in Huntington Beach. As discussed in Section 4.1,Air Quality,based on a baseline population estimate in Huntington Beach of approximately 191,677 persons and a statewide estimate of approximately 533 plastic bags used per person per year,retail customers in the City of Huntington Beach currently use an estimated 102,198,343 plastic bags per year. As shown in Table 4.3-2,overall GHG emissions associated with plastic carryout bag use in Huntington Beach are 2,725 CO2e per year or approximately 0.014 CO2e per person per year. Table 4.3-2 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags in Huntington Beach e per Existing GHG CO2e CO2 CO2e Bag Type Number of Bags Impact Rate (metric year per Used per Year per Bag tons) (metric persona tons) Single-use 102,198,343* 1.0 0.04 per 2,725.3 0.014 Plastic 1,500 bags** Total 2,725 0.014 CO2e=Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: `Approximate estimate of reusable bags purchased in one year by Huntington Beach retail customers. **Based on Boustead Report,2007, Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. ***Based on AEA Technology`Scottish Report,2005;Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. 'Emissions per person are divided by the existing population of Huntington Beach —191,677 City of Huntington Beach 4.3-5 Item 9. - 118 HB -214- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions d. Regulatory Setting. International and Federal Regulations. The United States is,and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was signed on March 21,1994. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty,made under the UNFCCC,and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions could be reduced by an estimated 5% from 1990 levels,during the first commitment period of 2008-2012. Although the United States is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Congress has not ratified the Protocol and the United States has not bound itself to the Protocol's commitments (UNFCCC, 2007) The United States is currently using a voluntary and incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions in lieu of the Kyoto Protocols mandatory framework. The Climate Change Technology Program(CCTP) is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort(led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce) that is charged with carrying out the President's National Climate Change Technology Initiative(USEPA,December 2007; http://www.epa,gov/clirnatechange/policy/cctp.html). To date, the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act;however,the U.S.Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2, 2007) held that the EPA can, and should,consider regulating motor-vehicle GHG emissions. On June 30,2009,the EPA granted California's request for a waiver to directly limit GHG tailpipe emissions for new motor vehicles beginning with the current model year. On December 7, 2009, the EPA determined that emissions of GHGs contribute to air pollution that"endangers public health and welfare" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.This action finalizes the EPA's "endangerment determination" initially proposed on April 17,2009,and now obligates the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. This finding sets the stage for the inevitable regulation under the Clean Air Act of GHG emissions from a wide range of stationary and mobile sources unless Congress preempts such regulation by enacting climate change leb lation. Although the EPA has not yet promulgated federal regulations limiting GHG emissions,further action is pending. California Regulations. Assembly Bill(AB) 1493,requiring the development and adoption of regulations to achieve"the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases" emitted by noncommercial passenger vehicles,light-duty trucks,and other vehicles used primarily for personal transportation,was signed into law in September 2002. In 2005, Executive Order S-3-05 established statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. S-3-05 provides that by 2010,emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels;by 2020,emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels;and by 2050,emissions shall be reduced to 80% of 1990 levels(CaIEPA 2006). In response to S-3-05, CaIEPA created the Climate Action Team(CAT),which in March 2006, published the Climate Action Team Report(the"2006 CAT Report") (CaIEPA,2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the S-3-05 targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. Strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions,the YMW City of Huntington Beach OF 4.3-6 Hs -215- Item 9. - 119 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels,increased recycling,and landfill methane capture. AB 32,the"California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,"was signed into law in the fall of 2006. AB 32 required the ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. The ARB was required to produce a plan by January 1,2009 to indicate how emission reductions will be achieved from major GHG sources via regulations,market mechanisms,and other actions. The bill requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions(essentially a 25% reduction below 2005 emission levels;the same requirement as under S-3-05),and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. In response to the requirements of AB 32,the ARB produced a list of 37 early actions for reducing GHG emissions in June 2007. The ARB expanded this list in October 2007 to 44 measures that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions by at least 42 million metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2020,representing about 25% of the estimated reductions needed by 2020(ARB,October 2007). After completing a comprehensive review and update process,the ARB approved a 19% statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. The scoping plan required under AB 32 was approved by the ARB Board on December 12,2008,and it provides the outline for actions to reduce GHG in California. The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions,which include direct regulations,alternative compliance mechanisms,monetary and non-monetary incentives,voluntary actions,market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system,and an AB 32 cost of implementation fee regulation to fund the program. Senate Bill(SB)97,signed in August 2007,acknowledges that GCC is an environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. In December 2009,the California Resources Agency(Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG and GCC impacts. Executive Order S-01-07 was enacted on January 18,2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. In addition,a Low Carbon Fuel Standard("LCFS")for transportation fuels is to be established for California. Senate Bill(SB)375,signed in August 2008,requires the inclusion of sustainable communities' strategies(SCS)in regional transportation plans(RTPs)for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The bill requires ARB to set regional targets for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles,for 2020 and 2035. On January 23,2009 ARB appointed a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to provide recommendations on factors to be considered and methodologies to be used in the ARB target setting process, as required under SB 375. The RTAC final report,issued on September 30,2009,recommended"ambitious but achievable" targets,with a significant emphasis on improving home affordability(rents and mortgages) near job centers as a means to reduce driving. City of Huntington Beach 4.3-7 Item 9. - 120 Hs -216- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions For more information on the Senate and Assembly bills,Executive Orders,and reports discussed above,and to view reports and research referenced above,please refer to the following websites:www.chmatechange.ca.gov and http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm. Local RegRIations and CEQA Requirements. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97,the Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and analysis of the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents,while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. To date,the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD),and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District(SJVAPCD)have adopted significance thresholds for GHGs. The SCAQMD threshold,which was adopted in December 2008,considers emissions of over 10,000 metric tons CO2e/year to be significant. However,the SCAQMD's threshold applies only to stationary sources and is expressly intended to apply only when the SCAQMD is the CEQA lead agency. Although not yet adopted,staff of the SCAQMD has proposed a project-level threshold of 4.8 metric tons CO2e per service population(defined to include both residents and employees)per year for use in the South Coast region(SCAQMD,"Proposed Tier 4 Performance Standards,September 2010 and personal communication Ian MacMillan,Program Supervisor-CEQA Intergovernmental Review,SCAQMD on December 29,2011).The City of Huntington Beach has utilized this threshold for other CEQA documents(i.e.,Beach&Ellis Mixed Use Project EIR,September 2011) and this"efficiency' metric threshold is derived from statewide compliance with AB 32. Therefore,the SCAQMD recommended threshold is reasonable to use for this analysis. Note that no air district has the power to establish definitive thresholds that will completely relieve a lead agency of the obligation to determine significance on a case-by-case basis for a specific project. 4.3.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions in March 2010. These guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project. According to the adopted CEQA Guidelines,impacts related to GHG emissions from the proposed project would be significant if the project would: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that nucy have a significant impact on the environment;and/or • Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change;therefore,the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of City of Huntington Beach 4.3-8 HB -21 7- Item 9. - 121 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions past projects,other current projects,and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines,Section 15355). The CEQA Guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project. As described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4,a lead agency shall have discretion to determine,in the context of a particular project,whether to: I. Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use;and/or 2. Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. Further,a lead agency should consider the following factors,among others,when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: I. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; 2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;and 3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution ofgreenlwuse gas emissions.If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. Although the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not involve any specific development project or change any land use designations,this section provides a quantitative analysis to estimate GHG emissions. The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project- specific impact through a direct influence to global climate change;therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,other current projects,and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines,Section 15355). For future projects,the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds,or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan(such as a Climate Action Plan). The City of Huntington Beach has not adopted a GHG reduction plan; City of Huntington Beach 4.3-9 Item 9. - 122 HB -21 s- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions therefore,the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is evaluated based on the SCAQMD's project-level threshold of 4.8 metric tons CO2e per service population(defined to include both residents and employees) per year(SCAQMD,"Proposed Tier 4 Performance Standards,September 2010). The proposed Ordinance would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions if the GHG emissions would result in more than 4.8 metric tons of CO2E units per service population (residents and employees) per year. In addition,impacts would be significant if the proposed Ordinance would be inconsistent with any of the applicable greenhouse gas emissions reductions strategies. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact GHG-1 The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would reduce the number of single-use carryout bags used in Huntington Beach and promote reusable bags,which are intended to be used multiple times. Implementation of the proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. However, emissions would not exceed recommended SCAQMD thresholds and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. The intent of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is to reduce the use of single-use carryout bags, and to promote the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. As such,the proposed Ordinance would incrementally reduce the number of single-use plastic carryout bags that are manufactured and incrementally increase the number of single-use paper and reusable bags that are manufactured, transported,and disposed of compared to existing conditions. As described in the Setting,through the manufacturing,transportation,and disposal,each single-use paper bag results in 3.3 times the emissions compared to the manufacturing, transportation and disposal of a single-use plastic bag. If only used once,the manufacturing, use and disposal of a reusable LDPE carryout bag results in 2.6 times the GHG emissions of a single-use HDPE plastic bag (Stephen L.Joseph, 2009;AEA Technology,2005;Ecobilan,2004; and Green Cities California MEA,2010). Thus,on a per bag basis,single-use plastic bags have less impact than single-use paper and reusable carryout bags. However,reusable carryout bags are intended to be used multiple times. With reuse of carryout bags,fewer total carryout bags would need to be manufactured,transported or disposed of compared to the existing processing activities of single-use plastic bags. As described in Section 4.1,Air Quality,as a result of the proposed Ordinance,existing plastic bags used in Huntington Beach(102 million annually)would be replaced by an estimated 46 million single-use paper bags and one million reusable bags;an estimated 5.1 million single-use plastic bags would remain in circulation(refer to Table 4.1-4).This represents a 95% reduction in single-use plastic bags and a 49% reduction in all types of carryout bags(including plastic, single-use paper,and reusable). City of Huntington Beach 4.3-10 HB -21 9- Item 9. - 123 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.3-3 provides an estimate of GHG emissions that would result from switching from plastic bags to paper and reusable carryout bags in Huntington Beach associated with the implementation of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Although the total number of carryout bags would be reduced by approximately 50 million bags per year,as a result of the increase of single-use paper bags,GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing,transport,and disposal of carryout bags would increase by an estimated 0.015 CO2e per person per year compared to existing conditions. Table 4.3-3 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Carryout Bags in Huntington Beach Estimated GHG Impact CO2e per CO2e Bag Type Number of Bags CO2e(metric tons) year(metric per Used per Year* Rate per Bag tons) Person' Single-use 5,109,917 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags** 136 0.0007 Plastic Single-use 45,989,254 2.971 0.1188 per 1,000 bags' 5,464 0.029 Paper Reusable 982,676 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags*** 102 0.0005 Total 5,702 0.030 Existing 2,725 0.014 Net Change 2,977 0.015 CO2e=Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units *refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1,Air Quality. ' 10%reduction(from a rate of 3.3)based on Santa Clara County Negative Declaration(SCH#2009102095)October 2010 and Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,December 2011 based on Environmental Defense Fund's Paper Calculator. **Based on Boustead Report, 2007,•Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. —Based on AEA Technology`Scottish Report,2005,-Santa Monica Single-use Canyout Bag Ordinance Final EIR,January 2011. 'Emissions per person are divided by the existing population of Huntington Beach— 191,677 The increase in GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing,transportation and disposal of carryout bags used in Huntington Beach as a result of the proposed Ordinance would be approximately 0.015 CO2e per person per year(or a total of approximately 2,977 COze per year). This represents approximately 0.0006% of California's statewide GHG inventory of 492 million CO2e per year. The proposed Ordinance's net increase of about 0.015 metric tons CO2e per person per year compared to existing conditions (0.014 CO2e per person per year)would not exceed the SCAQMD's 4.8 metric tons CO2e per person per year threshold. The proposed Ordinance would also be generally consistent with applicable regulations or plans addressing greenhouse gas reductions. As indicated above,the CAT published the Climate Action Team Report(the"2006 CAT Report") in March 2006. The CAT Report identifies a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate change City of Huntington Beach 4.3-11 Item 9. - 124 HB -220- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions greenhouse gas emissions. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of the Executive Order S-3-05. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the Governor's targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. In addition,in 2008 the California Attorney General published The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level(Office of the California Attorney General,Global Warming Measures Updated May 21,2008). This document provides information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project. Tables 4.34 and 4.3-5 illustrate that the proposed Ordinance would be consistent with the GHG reduction strategies set forth by the 2006 CAT Report as well as the 2008 Attorney General's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. Table 4.3-4 Proposed Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Project Consistency California Air Resources Board Vehicle Climate Change Standards Consistent AB 1493(Pavley)required the state to develop and adopt The trucks that deliver carryout bags to and from Huntington regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost- Beach on public roadways would be in compliance with ARB effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by vehicle standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were purchase. adopted by the ARB in September 2004. Diesel Anti-idling Consistent The ARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled Current State law restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or commercial motor vehicle idling in July 2004. less. Diesel trucks operating from and making deliveries to Huntington Beach are subject to this state-vide law. Alternative Fuels:Biodiesel Blends Consistent ARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to The diesel vehicles that deliver carryout bags to and from 4%biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. Huntington Beach on public roadways could utilize this fuel once it is commercially available. Alternative Fuels:Ethanol Consistent Increased use of E-85 fuel. Truck drivers delivering carryout bags could choose to purchase flex-fuel vehicles and utilize this fuel once it is commercially available regionally and locally. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures Consistent Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles The heavy-duty trucks that deliver carryout bags to and from and an education program for the heavy duty vehicle Huntington Beach on public roadways would be subject to all sector. applicable ARB efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle manufacture. Achieve 50%Statewide Diversion Goal Consistent Achieving the State's 50%waste diversion mandate as As of 2006,which represents the most recent data available, established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of the City of Huntington Beach maintained a 71%diversion rate 1989,(AB 939,Sher,Chapter 1095,Statutes of 1989),will from the Orange County landfills,which exceeds the AB 939 reduce climate change emissions associated with energy requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the Year Ir City of Huntington Beach 4,3-12 HB -221- Item 9. - 125 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.3-4 Proposed Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Project Consistency intensive material extraction and production as well as 2000(CIWMB,2006). In addition,SB 1016 established a per- methane emission from landfills, A diversion rate of 48% capita disposal rate as the instrument of measurement.The City has been achieved on a statewide basis. Therefore,a 2% of Huntington Beach is subject to a per resident disposal rate additional reduction is needed. target of 10.4 pounds per person per day(PPD).According to data from annual reports submitted by the City and published by CalRecycle,the CitVs PPD rate dropped from 5.5 in 2007 to 4.6 in 2009,demonstrating compliance with SB 1016. Any disposal of carryout bags would be required to adhere to the existing standards. The proposed Ordinance world also assist by promoting reusable carryout bags,thus reducing the amount of'solid waste generated in the form of single-use carryout bags. Zero Waste—High Recycling Consistent Efforts to exceed the 50%mandate would allow for As described above,the City exceeds the 50%goal of recycling additional reductions in climate change emissions. by diverting 71%of its solid waste and the City also has achieved a PPD rate of 4.6 in 2009 thus demonstrating compliance with SB 1016. The proposed Ordinance would assist by promoting reusable carryout bags,thus reducing the amount of solid waste generated in the form of single-use carryout bags.The Ordinance would also shift single-use bag consumption from plastic to paper.This would increase recycling of single-use bags because paper bags are recycled by services provided to each residence and workplace in the City.Consumer access to plastic bag recycling opportunities is limited. Energy Commission(CEC) Fuel-Efficient Replacement Tires&Inflation Programs Consistent State legislation established a statewide program to Carryout bag delivery drivers could purchase tires for their encourage the production and use of more efficient tires. vehicles that comply with state programs for increased fuel efficiency. Alternative Fuels Non-Petroleum Fuels Consistent Increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels in California's Carryout bag delivery drivers could purchase alternative fuel transportation sector,as recommended as recommended vehicles and utilize these fuels once they are commercially in the CEC's 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy available regionally and locally. Reports. Table 4.3-5 Proposed Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Strategy Project Consistency Transportation-Related Emissions Diesel Anti-Idling Consistent Set specific limits on idling time for commercial vehicles, Currently,the CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measure(ATCM) including delivery vehicles. to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling restricts City of Huntington Beach 4.3-13 Item 9. - 126 HB -222- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks delivering carryout bags to Huntington Beach are subject to this state-wide law. Solid Waste and Energy Emissions Solid Waste Reduction Strategy Consistent Project construction shall require reuse and recycling of As described above,the City exceeds the 50%mandate and construction and demolition(C&D)waste. diverts 71%of its solid waste and the City also has achieved a PPD rate of 4.6 in 2009 thus demonstrating compliance with SB 1016. Single-use carryout bags make up a portion of C&D waste.The proposed Ordinance would also assist by promoting reusable carryout bags,thus reducing the amount of C&D waste attributed to single-use carryout bags. Any disposal of carryout bags would be required to adhere to the existing standards. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would result in a net increase of approximately 0.015 metric tons CO2e per person per year. However,both the increase of GHG emissions compared to existing conditions and the total emissions after implementation of the Ordinance would be less than 4.8 metric tons CO2e per person per year and the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would be consistent with the CAT strategies and measures suggested in the Attorney Generals Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report as discussed in tables 4.3-4 and 4.3-5. Therefore,the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would be consistent with the objectives of AB 32,SB 97,and SB 375. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required since the impact would not be significant. Significance after Miti ag tion. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending carryout bag ordinances,as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0,Environmental Setting,would continue to reduce the amount of single- use carryout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable carryout bags. Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach Ordinance, such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Similar to the proposed Huntington Beach ordinance,other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally change the greenhouse gas emissions associated with bag manufacturing. At least six other agencies in Los Angeles region(County of Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach,Los Angeles,Malibu,Manhattan Beach,and Santa Monica) have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. However,based on the incremental increase in per capita emissions,the other ordinances are not expected to generate a cumulative increase in GHG emissions. For these reasons,cumulative significant impacts associated with implementation of carryout bag ordinances throughout the state are not anticipated. City of Huntington Beach 4.3-14 HB -223- Item 9. - 127 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.4 HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY This section analyzes the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance's potential to adversely affect hydrology and water quality. 4.4.1 Setting Carryout bags are manufactured at various facilities,which may or may not be located in Huntington Beach or in Orange County. Therefore,impacts to hydrology and water quality are not limited to the local watershed. However,for this analysis the local watershed and hydrologic conditions are discussed and used as an example of the types of effects that may occur as a result of the manufacturing and disposal of carryout bags. a. Surface Water Drainage and Carryout Bags. Huntington Beach is located within the Santa Ana River Basin(SARB),a 2,800 square mile area located roughly between Los Angeles and San Diego.The SARB is a group of connected inland basins and open coastal basins drained by surface streams flowing generally southwestward to the Pacific Ocean.The Santa Ana River Watershed is the largest in Orange County,covering 153.2 square miles. The river begins almost 75 miles away in the San Bernardino Mountains,crossing central Orange County before emptying into the Pacific Ocean. There are three major watersheds encompassing the City of Huntington Beach: Talbert/Greenville Banning Channel Watershed,Westminster Watershed,and the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed.The receiving waters in Huntington Beach include the Pacific Ocean, Huntington Harbor,Anaheim Bay,Bolsa Chica Wetlands,Huntington Beach Wetlands, Huntington Lake,Talbert Lake,Sully Miller Lake,Greer Park Lake,Blackbird Pond,as well as flood control channels.These receiving waters support numerous beneficial uses for people and wildlife. The beneficial uses include marine habitat;water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation;wildlife habitat;commercial and sport fishing; shellfish harvesting;rare, threatened or endangered species;spawning,reproduction,and development;and estuarine habitat (Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element,1996). Urban runoff consists of both dry and wet weather runoff that may flow untreated from the City's developed urban areas into gutters,storm drains,and ultimately into receiving waters. Runoff comes from streets,parking lots,residential areas,commercial and industrial businesses, and private yards. Carryout bags that enter the storm drain system may affect storm water flow by clogging drains and redirecting flow. As described in Section 4.2,Biological Resources,typical single-use plastic bags weigh approximately five to nine grams and are made of thin (less than 2.25 mils thick) high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Ryder Consulting,2007). Post-use from a retail store,a customer a may reuse a single-use plastic bag at home,but eventually the bags are disposed in the landfill or recycling facility or discarded as litter. Although some recycling facilities handle plastic bags,most reject them because they get caught in the machinery and cause malfunctioning or are contaminated after use. Only about 5% of the plastic bags in California and nationwide are currently recycled (Green Cities California MEA,2010;and Boustead,2007). sw City of Huntington Beach ir 4.4-1 Item 9. - 128 HB -224- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality The majority of single-use plastic bags end up as litter or in the landfill.Even those collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter due to their light weight(Green Cities California MEA,2010). Single-Use plastic bags that become litter can enter storm drains and may clog catch basins or be transported to the local watershed,the Huntington Harbor, Anaheim Bay,or the Pacific Ocean. Single-Use paper grocery bags also have the potential to enter the storm drains as litter. However,as described in Section 4.2,Biological Resources,because of the weight, biodegradability of the materials,and recyclability,single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags(Green Cities California MEA,2010). In addition,because single-use paper bags are not as resistant to breakdown,there is less potential to clog catch basins compared to single-use plastic bags. Thus,although single-use paper bag litter may enter storm drains and affect hydrologic flow of surface water runoff,the potential to enter storm drains and cause hydrologic affects is less than with single-use plastic bags. Reusable bags may also become litter and enter storm drains;however,these bags differ from the single-use bags in their weight and longevity. Reusable bags can be made from plastic or a variety of cloth such as vinyl or cotton. Built to withstand many uses,reusable bags weigh at least ten times what a single-use plastic bag weighs and two times what a single-use paper bag weighs,therefore restricting the movement by wind. Reusable bags are typically reused until worn out through washing or multiple uses,and then typically disposed either in the landfill or recycling facility. Because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags,reusable bags are less likely to become litter or be carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Therefore,reusable bags are less likely to enter the storm drain system as litter. b. Water Quality and Carryout Bags. The City of Huntington Beach conducts an extensive water quality monitoring program as required by and to document compliance with all applicable State and Federal requirements.Water quality testing programs are carried out by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)for groundwater,the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWDSC)for treated surface water,the Huntington Beach Public Works Utilities Division for water production and distribution systems, and Orange County Watersheds for water quality in channels. Water quality may be affected by carryout bags in two different ways,litter from carryout bags and the use of materials for processing activities. As described above in Surface Water Drainage and Carryout Bags above,litter that enters the storm drain system may clog storm drains and could result in contamination or may be transported into the local watershed or coastal habitat, violating waste discharge requirements (as described below in the Regulatory Setting).In addition,manufacturing facilities may utilize materials that,if released in an uncontrolled manner,could degrade the water quality in local waterways. While single-use plastic bags are more likely to affect water quality as a result of litter,the manufacturing process utilizes"pre-production plastic," which may degrade water quality if released either directly to a surface water body or indirectly through storm water runoff. Single-Use paper carryout bags have less litter-related effect on water quality than single-use plastic bags;however,the manufacturing process for paper bags may utilize various chemicals City of Huntington Beach 4.4-2 HB -225- Item 9. - 129 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality and materials and may also require the use of fertilizers,pesticides and other chemicals for production of resources(such as pulp). This may increase the potential for higher natural concentrations of trace metals,biodegradable wastes(which affect dissolved oxygen levels),and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus if discharged into water bodies, either directly or indirectly through storm water runoff. If released into the environment,these potential pollutants can degrade water quality in local water bodies. Reusable carryout bags are less likely to affect water quality. Because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags,reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). However,similar to single-use paper carryout bags,the manufacturing process for reusable bags can utilize materials such as chemicals or fertilizer for production of resources (such as cotton) that if released,either directly to a stream or indirectly via storm water runoff, could degrade water quality in local water bodies. c. Regulatory Setting. The federal Clean Water Act(CWA) and the California Ocean Plan are the primary mechanisms through which pollutant discharges are regulated in California. The CWA established minimum national water quality goals and created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit system to regulate the quality of discharged water. All dischargers must obtain NPDES permits. Beginning in 1991, all municipal and industrial storm water runoff is also regulated under the NPDES system. Although the CWA has established 126"priority contaminants" (metals and organic chemicals), the California Ocean Plan has established effluent limitations for 21 of these pollutants. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)is the primary Federal agency responsible for implementing the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)is the primary state agency responsible for implementing the CWA and the states Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act within state waters. The State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) is also responsible for water quality regulation through its work in preparing and adopting the California Ocean Plan. Local agencies also have responsibility for managing wastewater discharges. All are required to meet criteria set forth in their NPDES permits,to monitor their discharges,and to submit annual reports to the RWQCB. Assembly Bill (AB) 258 was enacted in 2008 to address problems associated with releasing "preproduction plastic" (including plastic resin pellets and powdered coloring for plastics) into the environment. The bill enacted Water Code Section 13367,requiring the State Water Resource Control Board and RWQCBs to implement a program to control discharges of preproduction plastic from point and nonpoint sources (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Program control measures must,at a minimum,include waste discharge,monitoring,and reporting requirements that target plastic manufacturing,handling,and transportation facilities. The program must, at a minimum,require plastic manufacturing, handling,and transportation facilities to implement best management practices to control discharges of preproduction plastics. This includes containment systems,careful storage of pre-production plastics,and the use of capture devices to collect any spills. The SWRCB(SWRCB,2010)reports that it is taking the following actions to comply with Section 13367: City of Huntington Beach 4.4-3 Item 9. - 130 HB -226- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality "State and Regional Water Board staff has conducted and are continuing to conduct compliance inspections of various types and scales of preproduction plastic manufacturing,handling, and transport facilities enrolled under California's Industrial General Permit(IGP)for storm water discharges...Collectively these inspections will help State and Regional Water Board staff to develop cost-effective regulatory approaches (including compliance-evaluation procedures and appropriate best management practices)for addressing this pollution problem. "The State Water Board has issued an investigative order to all plastic-related facilities enrolled under the IGP to provide the State Water Board with critical information needed to satisfy the legislative mandates in AB 258(Krekorian).Facilities subject to this order must complete an online evaluation and assess their points of potential preproduction plastics discharge and means of controlling these discharges. Data gathered as a result of this effort will be used to help the State Board understand the California plastics industry and ultimately develop appropriate regulation of these facilities to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act," Local Regulatory Setting The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Region 8 has jurisdiction over the Santa Ana River Basin.The Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB) is required,by law,to develop,adopt, and implement a Basin Plan for the entire region.The principal elements of the Basin Plan are a statement of beneficial water uses that the SARWQCB will protect;water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses;and,strategies and time schedules for achieving the water quality objectives.The water quality objectives are achieved primarily through the establishment and enforcement of waste discharge requirements(WDRs). Both beneficial uses and water quality objectives comprise the relevant water quality standards. Stormwater discharges from the City are also currently regulated under the fourth-term regional individual permit—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). The co- permittees of this Municipal NPDES Permit are responsible for the management of storm drain systems within their jurisdictions 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) within each respective jurisdiction, and take any other actions as may be necessary to meet the Maximum Extent Practicable(MEP) standard. The Municipal NPDES,Permit differs from the Construction General NPDES Permit in that it regulates stormwater runoff from sites and activities following construction, as opposed to during construction activities. The purpose of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) is to satisfy Municipal NPDES Permit conditions for creating and implementing an Urban Runoff Management Plan(URMP) to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP)for protection of receiving waterbody water quality and support of designated beneficial uses.The DAMP contains guidance on both structural and nonstructural BMPs for meeting these goals.The current specific water pollution control program elements are documented in City of Huntington Beach 4.4-4 HB -227- Item 9. - 131 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality the DAMP and the corresponding City of Huntington Beach Municipal NPDES Permit Local Implementation Plan of 2011 (City of Huntington Beach LIP).The City has developed the City of Huntington Beach LIP using the DAMP as its basis. The City of Huntington Beach LIP provides a written account of activities that the City has undertaken, or is undertaking,to meet the requirements of the fourth-term NPDES Permit.As with the DAMP,the City of Huntington Beach LIP proposes a wide range of continuing and enhanced BMPs and control techniques that will be implemented and reported as part of the fourth-term Permit reports.The DAMP will be modified to comply with the fourth-term Municipal NPDES Permit. 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.The Water Quality Element of the CURMP focuses primarily on managing runoff quality,while the Drainage Element addresses flood hazards and inconveniences. The CURMP identifies potential common solutions that can address both water quality and quantity concerns. 4.4.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The proposed Ordinance would create a significant hydrology or water quality impact if it would: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through. the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of tice course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted ncnoff? b. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? S. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud/low? 11. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 12. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? 13. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance(including washing),waste sow City of Huntington Beach 4.4-5 Item 9. - 132 HB -228- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? 14. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? The Initial Study(see Appendix A) concluded that only the first,fifth,sixth,thirteenth and fourteenth criteria could potentially result in a significant impact,while the proposed Single- Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would result in no impact with respect to the other criteria. Hence,only the first,fifth,sixth,thirteenth and fourteenth criteria are addressed in this section. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact HWQ-1 Although the proposed Single-Use Carryout 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 would be a Class N,beneficial,effect. As a result of the proposed Ordinance,existing plastic bags used in Huntington Beach(102.2 million annually) would be replaced by an estimated 46 million single-use paper bags and one million reusable bags;an estimated five million single-use plastic bags would remain in circulation(refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1,Air Quality).This represents a 95% reduction in single-use plastic bags and a 49% reduction in all types of carryout bags(including plastic, single-use paper, and reusable). Each type of carryout bags potential to become litter is based on the bag's weight,material and quantity of bags used within Huntington Beach. As described in Impact BIO-1 in Section 4.2, Biological Resources,the majority of single-use plastic bags end up as litter or in the landfill. Even those collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter due to their light weight(Green Cities California MEA,2010). 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). Based on the statewide data that currently almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags (or approximately 533 bags per person) are consumed annually in California(Green Cities California MEA,2010),retail customers in Huntington Beach currently use an estimated 102,198,343 plastic bags per year. Similarly,single-use paper grocery bags also have the potential to enter storm drains and local waterways as litter. However,as described in Impact BIO-1 in Section 4.2,Biological Resources, due to the weight,biodegradability of the materials,and recyclability, single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition,because single-use paper bags are not as resistant to breakdown,it would be less likely for single-use paper bags to block or clog drains compared to single-use plastic bags and they would therefore be less likely to result in storm drain blockage or contamination City or Huntington Beach FW 4.4-6 HB -229- Item 9. - 133 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality compared to single-use plastic bags. Due to the weight and sturdiness of reusable bags made for multiple uses, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to both single-use plastic and paper bags(Green Cities California MEA,2010). Reusable bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic and paper carryout bags. Therefore,shifting toward greater use of reusable bags would not degrade water quality compared to existing conditions as a result of litter,nor would it increase the potential for storm drain blockage. As described in Section 4.1,Air Quality,and Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions,the proposed Ordinance is anticipated to reduce the overall amount of carryout bags used in Huntington Beach per year by approximately 50.1 million bags. Therefore, the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would reduce the amount of litter associated with single-use plastic carryout bags. Consequently, water quality would benefit from the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance,which would be expected to reduce the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways as well as the receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean,thus improving water quality and reducing the potential for storm drain blockage. Mitigation Measures. Water quality and storm drains would benefit from the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance because the proposed Ordinance would be expected to incrementally reduce the amount of litter that enters the storm drain system and local waterways and the Pacific Ocean. Therefore,mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to water quality and storm drain operation from litter entering storm drains and local waterways would be beneficial without mitigation. Impact HWQ-2 A shift toward reusable bags could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production,which could potentially degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However,bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing regulations including NPDES Permit requirements,AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore,impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. The manufacturing process for single-use plastic,single-use paper,and reusable carryout bags utilize various chemicals and materials. Single-use plastic bag manufacturers utilize"pre- production plastic." As discussed in the Setting, single-use paper carryout bags and reusable carryout bag manufacturers may utilize various chemicals and materials and may also require the use of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals for production of resources(such as pulp or cotton),which may increase the potential for higher natural concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels),and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Similar to single-use paper carryout bags,the manufacturing process for reusable bags can utilize materials such as chemicals or fertilizer for production of resources(such as cotton) that if released,either directly to a stream or indirectly via storm water runoff,could degrade water quality in local water bodies. If released into the City of Huntington Beach 4.4-7 Item 9. - 134 HB -230- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality environment,these pollutant materials from the processing activities for carryout bags could degrade water quality. The intent of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is to reduce the amount of single-use carryout bags and promote the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. The Ordinance is anticipated to reduce single-use plastic bags in Huntington Beach by 95% and reduce the use of all types of bags(including plastic, single-use paper,and reusable)by 49%. These shifts in the types and amounts of carryout bags used could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production. The manufacturing impacts of each bag type and the anticipated changes in use are described below. Single-Use Plastic Bags. 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 or other sources. Single-use plastic bags begin the manufacturing process with the conversion of crude oil or natural gas into 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). As described in the Setting,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. Single-Use Paper Bags. The majority of single-use paper bags are made from Kraft paper bags,which are manufactured from a pulp that is produced by digesting a material into its fibrous constituents via chemical and/or mechanical means. Kraft pulp is produced by chemical separation of cellulose from lignin. Chemicals used in this process include caustic sodas,sodium hydroxide,sodium sulfide, and chlorine compounds (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Processed and then dried and shaped into large rolls,the paper is then printed, formed into bags,baled,and then distributed to grocery stores. Although it does not directly discharge pollutants,the paper bag manufacturing process may utilize fertilizers,pesticides and other chemicals in the production of resources such as pulp. These pollutants may increase the potential for higher concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels),and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, City of Huntington Beach 4.4-8 HB -231- Item 9. - 135 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality causing eutrophication as a result of surface water runoff. A single-use paper bag has 14 times the impact of one single-use plastic bag on eutrophication,which is caused when nitrate and phosphate are emitted into water,stimulating excessive growth of algae and other aquatic life (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Eutrophication reduces the water quality and causes a variety of problems such as a lack of oxygen in the water(Green Cities California MEA,2010). However, direct discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States are not allowed, except in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) program established in Section 402 of the Clean Water Act(CWA). Single-use paper bag manufacturers are required to comply with the local plans and policies of the SWRCB and the RWQCB,which regulate discharges to surface and groundwater,regulate waste disposal sites,and require clean up of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. For example,in the City of Huntington Beach, single-use paper bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to the Huntington Beach Citywide Urban Runoff Management Plan(CURMP) and other applicable requirements. It should be noted,however,there are no known single-use bag manufacturers in the City of Huntington Beach or Orange County. Reusable Bags.Reusable bags can be manufactured with various materials, including polyethylene(PE) plastic,polypropylene(PP)plastics,multiple types of cloth(cotton canvas, nylon,etc.),and recycled plastic beverage containers (polyethylene terephthalate, or PET), among others (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Depending on the type of material used in the manufacturing process,reusable bags have various impacts to water quality. A single reusable LDPE bag has 2.8 times the impact of a single-use plastic bag on eutrophication as result of the use of pollutants that are used for materials in the manufacturing process(Green Cities California MEA,2010). In addition,other types of reusable bags,such as cotton canvas, may require the use of fertilizers,pesticides and other chemicals in the production process. These pollutants may increase the potential for higher natural concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels),and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus causing eutrophication as a result of surface water runoff. However,with reuse of a LDPE or cotton canvas bag as intended,impacts to eutrophication would be lower in comparison to a single-use plastic bag and a single-use paper bag since reusable bags are intended to be used"hundreds of times' (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Therefore, each reusable bag would be expected to replace hundreds of single-use plastic or paper bags,more than offsetting the increased impacts associated with each individual bag. As with other types of carryout bags,reusable bag manufacturers would not be allowed to directly discharge pollutants into waters of the United States,except in accordance with the NPDES program established in Section 402 of the CWA. Reusable bag manufacturers may be required to obtain an"Individual"NPDES Permit and/or would need to adhere to an existing "General" NPDES Permit of the local area. An Individual NPDES permit regulates and limits the particular discharge at the manufacturing facility. The permit limits are based on the type of activity, nature of discharge and receiving water quality. Manufacturing facilities would need to apply for and obtain a permit prior to the start of manufacturing operations. In addition,as part of the Individual Permit,a manufacturing facility would be required to monitor and report its discharges to the local Regional Water Quality Control Board to demonstrate that the facility's discharges are not in violation of any water quality standards. City of Huntington Beach 4.4-9 Item 9. - 136 HB -232- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality Manufacturing facilities would also be required to adhere to existing General Permits that specify local discharge requirements for municipal storm water and urban runoff discharges. For example,in the City of Huntington Beach, single-use paper bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to the Huntington Beach Citywide Urban Runoff Management Plan (CURMP). Although reusable bags may utilize various materials,reusable carryout bag manufactures who utilize plastics in their production(for example,production of LPDE reusable bags) would also be required to adhere to requirements specified in AB 258,which addresses the release of "preproduction plastics" as described in the Setting. In addition, the California Health and Safety Code(Section 25531-25543.3)establishes a program for the prevention of accidental releases of regulated substances. With adherence to Health and Safety Code Section 25531- 25543.3,reusable carryout bag manufacturing facilities would be required to prepare and update a Risk Management Plan(RMP). This would further reduce the potential for a release of substances that may be washed into and through the storm drainage systems,local waterways, and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. Anticipated Changes in Bag Use. Based on a cost requirement of$0.10 per bag,as outlined in Section 4.1,Air Quality,it is assumed in this analysis that the total volume of plastic bags currently used in Huntington Beach(approximately 102,198,343 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by approximately 45% paper bags and 50% reusable bags as a result of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. It is assumed that 5% of the existing total of single-use plastic bags used in Huntington Beach would remain in use since the Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags(e.g.restaurants) and these retailers would continue to distribute plastic bags after the Ordinance is implemented. Even though the votume of a single paper carryout bag(20,48 liters) is generally equal to approximately 150% of the volume of a plastic bag(14 liters'),for this analysis it is conservatively assumed that 45,989,254 plastic bags(45% of those currently used)would be replaced by the same number of paper bags.It is estimated that the remaining 45,989,254 plastic bags eliminated by the Ordinance would be replaced by 982,676 reusable bags annually (refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1,Air Quality). Although the proposed Ordinance would be expected to incrementally increase the manufacturing of single-use paper bags and reusable bags for use in Huntington Beach,it would also eliminate approximately 97.08 million single-use plastic bags per year. With implementation of the proposed Ordinance,approximately 52 million carryout bags(including single-use paper, single-use plastic,and reusable bags)would be manufactured for use in Huntington Beach-a decrease of 49% compared to existing conditions. Because the proposed Ordinance would reduce the overall number of carryout bags manufactured,it would reduce the overall impacts to water quality associated with bag manufacturing. Furthermore,any existing or potential manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to existing federal, state and local regulations which are intended to protect water quality,as described above. Therefore,impacts to water quality related to,the potential change of processing activities as a ' The Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Final Environmental Impact Report(SCH#20091 1 1 104), Adopted by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors on November 16,2010. City of Huntington Beach 4.4-10 HB -233- Item 9. - 137 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality result of the proposed Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not be significant Mitigation Measures. Because the impact would not be significant,mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to water quality related to the potential change of process activities would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending carryout bag ordinances,as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0,Environmental Setting,would continue to reduce the amount of single- use carryout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable carryout bags. As discussed above,the hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed Huntington Beach Single- Use Carryout Bag Ordinance are not considered significant and are generally considered beneficial. At least six other agencies in southern California region(County of Los Angeles and the cities of Long Beach,Los Angeles,Malibu,Manhattan Beach,and Santa Monica) have either adopted or are considering such ordinances. These ordinances would be expected to result in similar reductions in the amount of litter entering storm drains,local creeks or watersheds, thereby improving water quality. In addition,the overall reduction in bag manufacturing expected to occur as a result of implementation of these ordinances would be expected to generally reduce water quality impacts associated with bag manufacturing. In addition,all single-use paper and reusable bag manufacturing facilities would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to preservation of water quality,including AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code,as discussed in Impact HWQ-2. For these reasons,cumulative significant impacts associated with implementation of carryout bag ordinances throughout the state are not anticipated. City of Huntington Beach 4.4-11 Item 9. - 138 HB -234- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA discussions 5.0 (3)THER CEQA DISCUSSIONS This section discusses additional issues required for analysis under CEQA,including growth inducement and significant irreversible environmental effects. 5.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of a proposed project's potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type,magnitude,and location of growth,it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance's growth- inducing potential is therefore considered significant if it could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas. The most commonly cited example of how an economic effect might create a physical change is where economic growth in one area could create blight conditions elsewhere by causing existing competitors to go out of business and the buildings to be left vacant. 5.1.1 Economic and Population Growth The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would prohibit specified retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale,and would create a mandatory 10 cent($0.10) charge for each paper bag distributed by these stores. The intent of the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance is to reduce the amount of single-use carryout bags, and to promote the use of reusable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would apply to three specified categories of retail establishments located within the City of Huntington Beach's corporate limits. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not include development of any physical structures or involve any construction activity. Therefore,the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not be growth-inducing as it would not affect long-term employment opportunities or increase the City's population. Revenues generated by sales of paper bags would remain with the affected stores. The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not affect economic growth and therefore would not be significant. 5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would prohibit specified retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale, and would create a mandatory 10 cent($0.10) charge for each paper bag distributed by these stores. No improvements to water,sewer, and drainage connection infrastructure would be necessary. No new roads would be required. Because the proposed Ordinance would not include any physical development or construction related activities and would not involve the extension of infrastructure into areas that otherwise could not accommodate growth,it would not remove an obstacle to growth. City of Huntington Beach 5-1 HB -235- Item 9. - 139 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA Discussions 5.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs reveal the significant environmental changes that would occur with project development. CEQA also requires decisionmakers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed Ordinance,and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance. The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would prohibit specified retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale, and would create a mandatory10 cent($0.10) charge for each paper bag distributed by these stores. As a City Ordinance, the proposed Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not include development of any physical structures or involve any construction activity. Therefore,the proposed Ordinance would not alter existing land uses or cause irreversible physical alterations related to land development or resource use. To the contrary,the express purpose of the Ordinance is to reduce the wasteful use of resources and associated environmental impacts. The manufacturing of carryout bags and the additional truck trips associated with delivering carryout bags(single-use paper and reusable bags) to Huntington Beach would incrementally reduce regional air pollutant emissions. As discussed in Section 4.1,Air Quality,air pollutant emissions would not be increased beyond existing thresholds and with anticipated reductions in the overall number of carryout bags in Huntington Beach,emissions would be reduced compared to existing conditions. Similarly, as discussed in Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions,the manufacturing of carryout bags,the additional truck trips associated with delivering carryout bags,and the disposal/degradation of carryout bags in landfills would represent a commitment to energy resources (oil and electricity) that are irreversible and may increase GHG emissions. However, although the proposed Ordinance would result in net increase of GHG emissions (approximately 0.015 CDE/person/year) compared to existing conditions,the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations related to reducing GHG emissions. Thus,the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not result in any significant impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions. City of Huntington Beach 5-2 Item 9. - 140 HB -23b- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives 6.0 ALTERNATIVES As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this section examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The following three alternatives are evaluated: Alternative 1: No Project • Alternative 2: Ban on Single-Else Plastic Bags at all Retail Establishments Alternative 3: Mandatory Charge of$0.25 for Paper Bags This section also includes a discussion of the"environmentally superior alternative" among those studied. 6.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 6.1.1 Description The No Project alternative assumes that the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not be adopted. Thus,the use of carryout bags at retail stores in Huntington Beach would not change compared to current conditions. Single-use plastic and paper carryout bags would be available free-of-charge to customers at most retail stores in Huntington Beach. In addition,reusable carryout bags would be available for purchase by retailers. 6.1.2 Impact Analysis No change in environmental conditions would occur under this alternative because neither a ban nor a mandatory charge for carryout bags would be imposed. Thus,Huntington Beach retail customers would have no incentive to alter their existing carryout bag preferences. Because conditions would not change under this alternative,none of the impacts in the studied issue areas associated with the proposed Ordinance would occur. This alternative would not result in the change in truck trips associated with delivering reusable and single-use paper bags that would occur with implementation of the proposed ordinance and would therefore eliminate impacts associated with such trips. In addition,because the No Project alternative would not facilitate a shift to reusable bags, the proposed Ordinance's less than significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be eliminated. On the other hand,this alternative would not achieve the proposed Ordinance's beneficial effects relative to air quality, biological resources(sensitive species), and hydrology and water quality,nor would it result in the general benefits with respect to litter accumulation that are expected to result from implementation of the proposed Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach 6-1 H -237- Item 9. - 141 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives 6.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: BAN ON SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS AT ALL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS 6.2.1 Description Similar to the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance,this alternative would ban retailers from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale and would create a mandatory$0.10 charge for paper bags. However,under this alternative,the Ordinance would apply to all categories of retail establishments in the City,including restaurants,food providers and stores less than 10,000 square feet. As a result, under this alternative,no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Huntington Beach. Under this alternative,the Ordinance would result in a 100% reduction of the number of plastic bags distributed to customers(thus, a reduction of 102,198,343 plastic bags). In contrast,the proposed Ordinance would only reduce 95% of the plastic bags. It is assumed that the additional 5% of plastic bags that would be removed as part of this alternative would be replaced by reusable bags,such that,in total,55% of single-use plastic bags currently used in the City would be replaced by reusable bags, and 45%would be replaced by paper bags. The total estimate of bag use under this alternative,compared to the proposed Ordinance,is summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Ordinance versus Alternative 2 Bags Used Annually Bag Type Proposed Ordinance* Alternative 2** Single-Use Plastic 5,109,917 0 Single-Use Paper 45,989,254 45,989,254 Reusable 982,676 1,080,944 *Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1,Air Quality. **Based on assumptions of 55%conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Huntington Beach to reusable bags(based on 52 uses per year)and 45%conversion to paper bags_ 6.2.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. As described in Section 4.1,Air Quality, it is anticipated that the proposed Ordinance would replace the total volume of single-use plastic bags currently used in Huntington Beach with approximately 45% paper bags and 50% reusable bags,leaving 5% of the plastic bags in circulation(or approximately 5.1 million bags,as shown in Table 6-1 above). This alternative would apply to all retail establishments in Huntington Beach and would therefore eliminate an additional 5.1 million single-use plastic bags as compared to the proposed Ordinance. Consequently,this alternative would reduce emissions associated with plastic bag manufacturing,transportation, and disposal to a greater extent than the proposed Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach 6-2 Item 9. - 142 HB -238- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Table 6-2 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 2,as compared with the proposed Ordinance and existing conditions. Table 6-2 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 2 #of Bags Ozone Ozone Ozone AA AA AA Bag Emission Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions Type Used per Rate per (kg)per per year Rate per (kg) per per year Year Bag 1,000 bags (kg) Bag 1,000 bags (kg) Single- use 0 1.0 0.023 0 1.0 1.084 0 Plastic Single- use 45,989,254 1.3 0.03 1,380 1.9 2.06 94,738 Paper Reusable 1,080,944 1.4 0.032 35 3.0 3.252 3,515 Alternative 2 Total 1,415 Total 98,253 Proposed Ordinance Total 1,529 Total 103,473 Difference (114) (5,220) Existing Total (without an Ordinance) 2,351 Existing 110,783 Net Change of Alternative 2 (936) Net Change (7,310) (Alternative 2 Total minus Existing Total) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-5 in Section 4.1,Air Quality. This alternative would increase the use of reusable bags in the City compared to the proposed Ordinance.However,the reduction to ground level ozone would be greater than the proposed Ordinance by approximately 114 kg per year(a further reduction of approximately 7%)and the reduction to atmospheric acidification would be greater than the proposed Ordinance by approximately 5,220 kg per year(a further reduction of approximately 5%). Like the proposed Ordinance,Alternative 2 would result in beneficial impacts since the contribution to both ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification would decrease compared to existing conditions as a result of implementation of an ordinance that would ban plastic bags at all retail establishments. To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 2, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in Section 4.1,Air Quality.As shown in Table 6- 3,Alternative 2 would result in an estimated 221 truck trips per year, or 0.61 truck trips per day, which is slightly higher than the proposed Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach 6-3 HB -239- Item 9. - 143 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Table 6-3 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 2 Bag Type Number of Bags Number of Bags Truck Trips Per Truck Trips per per Year per Truck Load* Year Day Single-use Plastic 0 2,080,000 0 0 Single-use Paper 45,989,254 217,665 211 0.58 Reusable 1,080,944 108,862 9.92 0.027 Alternative 2 Total 221 0.61 Truck Trips from Proposed Ordinance 223 0.61 Difference (2) 0 Existing Total(without an Ordinance) 49 0.13 Net Change of Alternative 2 172 0.47 (Alternative 2 Total minus Existing Total) "City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR(SCH#2010041004),January 2011;and City of Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR(SCH#2011062032),December 2011. Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 2,mobile emissions were calculated using the URBENUS model, As shown in Table 6-4,although Alternative 2 would slightly decrease truck trips compared to the proposed Ordinance (decrease by two trucks per year),this decrease is negligible such that daily ROG,NO,PMlo,and PM2.5 emissions would be the same for Alternative 2 as for the proposed Ordinance. None of these emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Table 6-4 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 2 Emissions(lbs/day) ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions:Proposed Ordinance 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.01 0.01 Mobile Emissions:Alternative 2 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.01 0.01 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No Source: URBEMIS version 9.24 calculations for Truck Trips.See Appendix B for calculations City of Huntington Beach 6-4 Item 9. - 144 xB -240- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Based on the data in tables 6-3 and 6-4,impacts resulting from bag manufacturing and use (including ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification)would be slightly reduced under this alternative,but would continue to be Class IV,beneficial,while impacts relating to an increase in truck trips would be similar,and would continue to be Class III,less than significant. b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would ban single-use plastic carryout bags,thereby reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Although this alternative may incrementally increase the use of reusable bags in Huntington Beach as compared to the proposed Ordinance,the impacts of reusable bags on biological resources are less than those of single-use plastic bags. Because of the weight,biodegradability of the materials, and recyclability,reusable bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags (Green Cities California MEA,2010). Therefore,the impact to sensitive species as a result of litter entering the marine environment from Alternative 2 would be reduced compared to the proposed Ordinance. Similar to the proposed Ordinance,impacts would be Class IV,beneficial. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater than those of the proposed Ordinance since fewer plastic bags would be available within the city. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags by approximately 5.1 million bags and increase the number of reusable bags by 98,268. The number of paper bags would not change under this alternative. As noted in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, through the manufacturing,transportation,and disposal, each reusable bag results in 2.6 times the emissions of a single-use plastic bag. Because this alternative would increase the number of reusable bags and reduce the number of single-use plastic bags,it would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Ordinance. Table 6-5 (on the following page) shows estimated GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 2. Compared to the proposed Ordinance,GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would decrease by approximately 0.001 COze per person per year. Like the proposed Ordinance,the net increase in emissions compared to existing conditions as a result of this alternative(net increase of 0.015 COze per person per year)would not exceed the SCAQMD's 4.8 metric tons CDE per person per year threshold. Therefore,impacts would remain Class III,less than significant. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in Huntington Beach,thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains. Although this alternative would be expected to replace 5.1 million single-use plastic bags with 98,268 reusable bags(see Table 6-1), due to the weight and sturdiness of reusable bags made for "multiple uses,reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to both single-use plastic and paper bags. Therefore,shifting toward greater use of reusable bags would not degrade water quality compared to existing conditions as a result of litter,nor would it increase the potential for storm drain blockage (refer to Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality). Because reusable bags would be less likely to result in storm drain blockage or contamination,this alternative would reduce litter compared to the proposed City of Huntington Beach 6-5 HB -241- Item 9. 7 145 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Table 6-5 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 2 Estimated OHG Impact COZe per COZe Bag Type Number of Bags Rate per Bag COZe(metric tons) year(metric per Used per Year tons) Person Single-use 0 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 0 0 Plastic Single-use 45,989,254 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 5,464 0.032 Paper Reusable 1,080,944 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 112 0.0005 Alternative 2 Total 5,576 0.029 Proposed Ordinance 5,702 0.030 Difference (126) 0.001 Existing Total (without an Ordinance) 2,725 0.014 Net Change of Alternative 2 2,851 0.015 (Alternative 2 Total minus Existing Total) CO2e=Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source:Refer to Table 4.3-4 in Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Ordinance. As with the proposed Ordinance,an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore,like the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would result in generally Class IV,beneficial, effects to water quality,and overall benefits would be somewhat greater under this alternative. This alternative would be expected to result in the use of more reusable bags in Huntington Beach than with implementation of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. However, as with the proposed Ordinance, reusable bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same as the proposed Ordinance and would remain Class III,less than significant. City of Hun 6ngfon Beach 6-6 Item 9. - 146 HB -242- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives 6.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: MANDATORY CHARGE OF $0.25 FOR PAPER BAGS 6.31 Description Similar to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would prohibit three specified categories of retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However,under this alternative,the mandatory charge for each paper bag distributed by stores in the City would be increased from$0.10 per bag(as currently proposed) to$0.25 per bag. As a result of the$0.25 mandatory charge increase for paper bags,it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags since customers would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Based on a cost requirement of$0.25 per bag,it is assumed that the total volume of plastic bags currently used in Huntington Beach(estimated at 102,198,343 plastic bags per year)would be replaced by approximately 35% paper bags and 60% reusable bags under Alternative 3 (compared to 45% paper and 50% reusable assumed for the proposed Ordinance).It is assumed that 5% of existing single-use plastic bags would remain in use,similar to the proposed Ordinance, since the alternative would not apply to some retailers who distribute plastic bags (e.g. restaurants). Table 6-6 summarizes the changes in bag distribution as a result of a$0.25 mandatory charge under this alternative compared to the$0.10 charge under the proposed Ordinance. Table 6-6 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Ordinance versus Alternative 3 Bags Used Annually Bag Type Proposed Ordinance Alternative 3 Single-Use Plastic 5,109,917 5,109,917 Single-Use Paper 45,989,254 35,769,420 Reusable 982,676 1,179,211 "Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1,Air Quality. **Based on an assumption of 5%existing plastic bag use in Huntington Beach(approximately 102 198,343 plastic bags per year)to remain,35%conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Huntington Beach to paper bags and 60•1 conversion to reusable bags(based on 52 uses per year). 6.3.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. As described in Section 4.1,Air Quality,it is estimated that the proposed Ordinance would replace the total volume of single-use plastic bags currently used in Huntington Beach with approximately 45% paper bags and 50% reusable bags,leaving 57o of the plastic bags in circulation(or approximately 5.1 million bags,as shown in Table 6-1 above). This alternative would increase the mandatory charge on paper bags by fifteen cents,and would therefore promote a greater shift toward reusable bags. Consequently, this alternative City of Huntington Beach 6-7 HB -243- Item 9. - 147 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives would reduce the number of single-use paper bags and increase the number of reusable bags compared to the proposed Ordinance.Because this alternative would apply to the same retailers as the proposed Ordinance,the number of single-use plastic bags remaining in circulation would be the same. In total,Alternative 3 would result in 10,023,299 fewer bags (including single-use plastic,single-use paper, and reusable) than the proposed Ordinance. Air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacturing,transportation, and disposal would therefore be reduced when compared to the proposed Ordinance. Table 6-7 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 3,as compared to the proposed Ordinance and existing conditions. Table 6-7 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 3 #of Bags Ozone Ozone Ozone AA AA AA Bag Used per Emission Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions Type Year Rate per (kg) per per year Rate per (kg) per per year Bag 1,000 bags (kg) Bag 1,000 bags (kg) Single- use 5,109,917 1.0 0.023 117.52 1.0 1.084 5,539.15 Plastic Single- use 35,769,420 1.3 0.03 1,073 1.9 2.06 73,685 Paper Reusable 1,179,211 1.4 0.032 38 3.0 3.252 3,835 Alternative 3 Total 1,229 Total 83,059 Proposed Ordinance Total 1,529 Total 103,473 Difference (300) (20,414) Existing Total (without an Ordinance) 2,351 Existing 110,783 Net Change of Alternative 3 (1,122) Net Change (27,724) (Alternative 3 Total minus Existing Total) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-5 in Section 4.1,Air Quality. This alternative would increase the use of reusable bags in the City compared to the proposed Ordinance. However,because the alternative would reduce the number of paper bags by almost 10 million,the reduction to ground level ozone would be greater that the proposed Ordinance by approximately 300 kg per year(a further reduction of approximately 20%) and the reduction to atmospheric acidification would be greater than the proposed Ordinance by approximately 27,724 kg per year(a further reduction of approximately 27%). Like the rV City of Huntington Beach 6-8 Item 9. - 148 HB -244- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives proposed Ordinance,Alternative 3 would result in beneficial impacts since the contribution to both ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification would decrease compared to existing conditions as a result of implementation of an ordinance that would apply a$0.25 fee on paper bags. To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 3,the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in Section 4.1,Air Quality.As shown in Table 6- 8,Alternative 3 would result in an estimated 178 truck trips per year,or 0.49 truck trips per day, which is approximately 20% fewer truck trips than the proposed Ordinance. Table 6-8 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 3 Number of Bags Number of Bags Truck Trips Per Truck Trips per Bag Type per Year per Truck Load* Year Day Single-use Plastic 5,109,917 2,080,000 2.5 0.007 Single-use Paper 35,769,420 217,665 164 0.45 Reusable 1,179,211 108,862 11 0.03 Alternative 3 Total 178 0.49 Truck Trips from Proposed Ordinance 223 0.61 Difference (45) (0.12) Existing Total(without an Ordinance) 49 0.13 Net Change of Alternative 3 129 0.35 (Alternative 3 Total minus Existing Total) "City of Santa Monica Singie-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance ElR(SCH#2010041004),January 2011;and City of Sunnyvale Carryout . . Bag Ordinance EIR(SCH#2011062032),December 2011. 4W Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 3,mobile emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS model.As indicated in Table 6-9,daily ROG and PM10 emissions would be the same for Alternative 3 as for the proposed Ordinance,while daily emissions of NO.and PMzswould be slightly lower. Like the proposed Ordinance,none of these emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. City of Huntington Beach 6-9 HB -245- Item 9. - 149 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Table 6-9 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 3 Emissions(lbs/day) ROG NO, CO PM10 PMi5 Mobile Emissions: 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.01 0.01 Proposed Ordinance Mobile Emissions: 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.00 Alternative 3 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No Source: URBEMIS version 9.2.4 calculations for Truck Trips.See Appendix B for calculations Based on the above,Alternative 3 would slightly reduce air quality impacts compared to the proposed Ordinance.Impacts resulting from bag manufacturing and use(ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification)would continue to be Class IV,beneficial,while impacts relating to an increase in truck trips would continue to be Class III,less than significant. b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would ban single-use plastic carryout bags from certain retailers,thereby incrementally reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Compared to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would also further reduce the amount of single-use paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment. Although single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags(refer to Section 4.2,Biological Resources),the net reduction of all bag types associated with this alternative would result in overall less litter entering the marine environment. As a result, the benefits with respect to marine species would be greater than those of the proposed Ordinance. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of single-use paper bags by approximately 10 million bags and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 196,535. The number of single-use plastic bags would not change under this alternative. As noted in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, the manufacturing,transportation,and disposal of each single-use paper bag results in 3.3 times the emissions of a single-use plastic bag,while the manufacturing, transportation,and disposal of each reusable bag results in approximately 2.6 times the emissions of a single-use plastic bag. This alternative would increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 196,535,which would slightly increase GHG emissions;however,it would reduce the number of single-use paper bags to a greater extent(approximately 10 million bags). Table 6-10 provides an estimate of GHG emissions that would result from the reduction of carryout bags as a result of implementation of Alternative 3. City of Huntington Beach 6-10 Item 9. - 150 HB -246- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Table 6-10 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 3 Estimated CO2e per CO2e Bag Type Number of Bags GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e(metric tons) year(metric per Used per Year tons) Person Single-use 5,109,917 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 136 0.0007 Plastic Single-use 35,769,420 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 49249 0.022 Paper Reusable 1,1799211 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 123 0.0006 Alternative 3 Total 4,508 0.023 Proposed Ordinance 5,702 0.030 Difference (1,194) (0.007) Existing Total(without an Ordinance) 2,725 0.014 Net Change of Alternative 3 1,783 0.009 (Alternative 3 Total minus Existing Total) CO2e=Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source:Refer to Table 4.34 in Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Ordinance,GHG emissions under Alternative 3 would decrease by approximately 0.007 CDE per person per year. Like the proposed Ordinance,the net increase of emissions compared to existing conditions as a result of this alternative(net increase of 0.009 CO2e per person per year)would not exceed the SCAQMD's 4.8 metric tons CDE per person per year threshold. Therefore,impacts would remain Class III,less than significant. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in Huntington Beach,thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains. In addition, this alternative would further reduce the number of single-use paper bags compared to the proposed Ordinance(by approximately 10 million bags),replacing them instead with approximately 196,535 reusable bags.As a result,overall,this alternative would reduce litter compared to the proposed Ordinance. As with the proposed Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore,like the proposed Ordinance,this alternative would result in Class IV,beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater under this alternative. This alternative would be expected to result in the use of fewer single-use paper carryout bags in Huntington Beach than with implementation of the proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. However,it would not completely eliminate single-use paper bags. As with the City of Huntington Beach 6-11 HB -247- Item 9. - 151 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Sag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Altematives proposed Ordinance,single-use paper bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements,AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same as the proposed Ordinance and would continue to be Class III,less than significant. 6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE This subsection identifies the environmentally superior alternative. The Mandatory Charge of $0.25 for Paper Bags alternative would be considered environmentally superior among the alternatives,as it would have more environmental benefits compared to the proposed Ordinance. This alternative would result in beneficial effects to the environment compared to existing conditions in the areas of air quality,biological resources,and hydrology/water quality. This alternative would also meet the project objectives,including: 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 9 Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment(Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) The proposed Ordinance would not have any significant impacts; therefore,adopting Alternative 3(Mandatory Charge of$0.25 for Paper Bags) rather than the proposed project would not avoid any significant environmental effects. Table 6-11 compares the impacts for each of the alternatives. City of Huntington Beach 6-12 Item 9. - 152 HB -248- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives Table 6-11 Impact Comparison of Alternatives Proposed Alt 1: Alt 2: Alt 3: Issue Ordinance No Project Ban on Plastic Bags at Mandatory Charge of all Retail Establishments $0.25 for Paper Bags Air Quality = -/+ +/= + Biological = _ + Resources Greenhouse Gas _ + Emissions Hydrology/Water Quality +Superior to the proposed project(reduced level of impact) Inferior to the proposed project(increased level of impact) _/+slightly superior to the proposed project in one or more aspects,but not significantly superior =Similar level of impact to the proposed project City of Hunfington Beach 6-13 HB -249- Item 9. - 153 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers 7.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARERS 7.1 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. Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP). Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. June 29, 2007. 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 Air Resources Board,Ambient Air Quality Standards,updated September 2010. Available online at: htt2://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Emission Control Fact Sheet,2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc newfs.pdf California Air Resources Board,2008,2009,&2010 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries. Available at:htip://www.arb.ca.gov California Air Resources Board Homepage, "Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust." Accessed June 2011. Available at: ht!p://www.arb.ca.gov California Air Resources Board."Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program." Updated March 2009. Avaliable at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck- idling.htm California Air Resources Board. "Truck and Bus Regulation." On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use)Reg ation. Updated May 2011. Avaliable at: http://w-ww.arb.ca.gov/mWrog/onrdiesel/­`­onrdiesel.htm California Climate Change Center. Climate Scenarios for California. 2006. California Department of Finance. January 2011. "E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,and the State,2010-2011,with 2010 Benchmark." California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database (RareFind 3.1.0). Accessed December 2011. City of Huntington Beach 7-1 Item 9. - 154 HB -250- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers California Department of Fish and Game. 2011a. Special Animals.55 pgs. Biogeographic Data Branch,California Natural Diversity Database. January 2011. California Department of Fish and Game. 2011b. Special Vascular Plants,Bryophytes, and Lichens List.78 pgs. Biogeographic Data Branch,California Natural Diversity Database. October 2011. California Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California's Water Resources. July 2006 California Energy Commission,February 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in California:An Overview. CEC-500-2005-186-SF California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004, Staff Final Report, CEC-600-2006-013-SF. December 2006 California Energy Commission. Inventory Draft 2009 Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislature. Staff Draft Report. March 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency,March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. http://www.chmatechange.ca.gov/climate action team/reports/2006-04- 03 FINAL CAT REPORT EXECSUMMARY.PDF California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2009. California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.Prepared by Cascadia Consulting Group.August 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2007. Resolution,Agenda Item 14, June 12, 2007 Board Meeting. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).2010. Huntington Beach Waste Stream Profile,2010. California Natural Resources Agency,2007. CEQA Guidelines. hUp://ceres.ca_ov/cecla/,gu idelines/ California Water Resources Control Board. 2010.Preproduction Plastic Debris Program website. Available at: http•//www waterboards ca gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/plasticdebris.shtml Californians Against Waste."Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances." Accessed July 15, 2011, hu://www.cawrtgyctes.oKg/issues/plastic campaign/plastic bags/local Cayan,D.,A.L.Luers,M. Hanemann,G. Grano,and B. Croes. Scenarios of Climate Change in California:An Overview.California Climate Change Center, State of California. White Paper,CEC-500-2005-203-SF. March 2006 City of Huntington Beach 7-2 HB -251- Item 9. - 155 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers Cayan,D., E.Maurer,M. Dettinger,M.Tyree,K.Hayhoe,C. Bonfils,P.Duffy,and B.Santer. Climate Scenarios for California:Climate Action Team Reports to the Governor and Legislature. 2006. City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Natural Resources/Conservation Element(1996). Available at: http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/environmental_resources_conservati on element._pdf City of Pasadena. 2008. Plastic Bag Reduction Program Research. Presented to Environmental Advisory Commission. City of Santa Monica.January 2011. "Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance." Final Environmental Impact Report. October 2010. City of Sunnyvale.December 2011."Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance". Final Environmental Impact Report. November 2011. County of Santa Clara. October 2010. Initial Study for Single-use Carryout Bag. County of Los Angeles. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report. Derraik,J.B.,and M.R. Gregory.2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings-entanglement, ingestion, smotherings, hangers-on,hitchhiking,and alien invasions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364. Ecobilan.2004. Environmental impact assessment of Carrefour bags. Report prepared for Carrefour by Ecobilan,February 2004. Environmental Paper Network.2007. "The State of the Paper Industry: Monitoring the Indicators of Environmental Performance." ExcelPlas Australia.2004. "The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia." Centre for Design at RMIT, and NOLAN-ITU. 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. Herrera et al.2008. "Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items. Volume I and II.Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities.January 2008. Hyder Consulting. 2007. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. James and Grant.2005."Lifecycle Assessment of Compostable Plastic Bags." Centre for Design, Melbourne Institute of Technology. City of Huntington Beach 7-3 Item 9. - 156 HB -252- Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers 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. Kiparsky,Michael and Peter H.Gleick,2003. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature.California Energy Commission Report 500-04-073 Laist,D.W. 1997.Impacts of marine debris:entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In Marine Debris:sources,impacts and solutions(eds J.M.Coe&B.D. Rogers),pp.99-141. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Moore, C.J., Lattin,G.L.,Zellers,A.F. 2005a. "A Brief Analysis of Organic Pollutants Sorbed to Pre and Post-production Plastic Particles from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Watersheds." Agalita Marine Research Foundation,Long Beach,CA. Mato Y.,Isobe T.,Takada H.,et al.2001. "Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium of toxic chemicals in the marine environment."Environmental Science&Technology.Volume 35. McMillan,Ian. South Coast Air Quality Management District Program Supervisor- CEQA Intergovernmental Review. Personal communication conducted on December 29,2011. Ocean Conservancy. "Trash Travels:2010 Report" International Coastal Cleanup Day.April 2010. Orange County Water District. (2008). Santa Ana River Watershed. Available at: http://Nv-ww.ocwd.com/Santa-A-na-Watershed/­ ca-29.aspx Parmesan, C. 2004.Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Parmesan C,Galbraith H.2004.Observed Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in North America.Arlington,VA:Pew Cent.Glob. Clim. Change The Royal Society."Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide." June 30th 2005. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC).2007. Available at: www.unfccc.int. URBEMIS Model,Version 9.2.4. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).2007. "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007(AR4)."Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications-and data/publications and data reports.shtml U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA).Climate Change Technology Program(CCTP). December 2007.http://www.epa.gov/chmatechange/policy/cctp.html City of Huntington Beach 7-4 HB -253- Item 9. = 157 Huntington Beach Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Region IX's Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) Table, 2004. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/regim9/superfund/per/files/04usersggide.pdf U.S. EPA. 2005. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste,Table 7, as reported in County of Los Angeles,2007. 7.2 REPORT PREPARERS This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants,Inc.,under contract to the City of Huntington Beach. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below. Rincon Consultants,Inc. Joe Power,AICP,Principal Matt Maddox,MESM,Environmental Planner Megan Jones,Senior Planner Carte Wingert,Associate Biologist Kathy Babcock,Graphics Technician Katherine Warner,Graphics Technician Katie Stanulis,Production Coordinator City of Huntington Beach 7-5 Item 9. - 158 1413 -254- Appendix A Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and NOP Comment Letters HB -255- Item 9. - 159 F PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH B PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS AND PROMOTING THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS AND NOTICE OF A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for a Municipal Code amendment repulatinj! the use of plastic carryout bats and recyclable paper carryout bats and promoting the use of reusable.bats. The City of Huntington Beach has prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the proposed project. The NOP includes an environmental assessment that identifies the potential environmental impacts to be addressed in the EIR. The NOT will be available for public review and comment for 30 days, commencing Thursday, November 17, 2011 and ending Monday, December 19, 2011. Written comments on the NOP must be submitted to Hayden Beckman, Planning Aide, City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 by 5:00 PM, Monday, December 19, 2011. A copy of the NOP is on file at the following locations: 1. Planning and Building Department,3rd Floor,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, CA 92648; 2. Central Library,7111 Talbert Avenue,Huntington Beach, CA 92647; and 3. City website at hyp://-K%,w.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/Departments/Planning/Environmentalrel? orts.cfiLn Proiect Description: The project involves the adoption of a proposed ordinance (Ordinance)by the City of Huntington Beach City Council that would prohibit distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach, and establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags at all grocery stores and supermarkets, drug stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, foodmarts and Huntington Beach farmer's markets. 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. The Ordinance would also prohibit the distribution of compostable and biodegradable plastic carry-out bags, as they are included in the definition of a plastic carry-out bag. The Ordinance requires that the paper bags be one hundred percent(100%)recyclable overall, contain a minimum of forty percent(40%)post-consumer recycled material, and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City, among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured for a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead, Item 9. - 160 HB -256- cadmium, or other heavy element in toxic amounts, among other criteria. Plastic bags that are a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten(14) cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women,Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Food Program. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable bags or recyclable paper carry-out bags or both,to these customers, at the store's option. Customers will have the option to use their own reusable bags, or no bag at all. Scopine Meetiny, A meeting will be held during the comment period to take comments related to the scope of the environmental issues to be analyzed within the draft EIR. The meeting will be held at 6:44 PM on Wednesday, December 7, 2411 in the Talbert Room at Huntington Beach Library located at 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, California. For further information, please contact Hayden Beckman at 714-374-5317. a HB -257- Item 9. - 161 ���`a.—;�. ....,�.*-.n�.���,.,..-..,-.-..V. .t_..µw. •r �` -. .... 's. -. tee' 1. PROJECT TITLE: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER CARRYOUT BAGS AND PROMOTING THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Hayden Beckman,Planning&Building Department Phone: (714)536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Same as Lead Agency 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various 6. ZONING: Various 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the adoption of a proposed ordinance(Ordinance)by the City of Huntington Beach City Council that would prohibit distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach, and establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags at all grocery stores and supermarkets, drug stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, foodmarts and Huntington Beach farmer's markets. All stores affected by the proposed ordinance would be required to provide resusable 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. Stores located within Huntington Beach that would be affected include the following: L A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars($2,000,000), or more,that sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items; 2. A store of at least ten thousand(10,000)square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Bums Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law(Part 1.5 Page I Item 9. - 162 HB -258- (commencing with Section 7200)of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code)and that has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or 3. A drug store,pharmacy, supermarket, grocery store, convenience food store, food mart,or other entity engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk,bread,soda, snack foods,including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Ordinance would also prohibit the distribution of compostable and biodegradable plastic carry-out bags, as they are included in the definition of a plastic carry-out bag.The Ordinance would impose a ten (10) cent charge on recyclable paper carry-out bags,and requires that the paper bags be one hundred percent(100%)recyclable overall, contain a minimum of forty percent(40%)post-consumer recycled material,and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City, among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured for a minimum lifetime of 125 uses,be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead, cadmium, or other heavy element in toxic amounts, among other criteria-Plastic bags that are a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten(10) cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women,Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Food Program.All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale,free of charge, either reusable bags or recyclable paper carry-out bags or both,to these customers, at the store's option. Customers will have the option to use their own reusable bags, or no bag at all. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: Located in north Orange County,Huntington Beach is bordered by the Cities of Seal Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley to the north, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean along an approximately 9.5 mile southwestern boundary. Surrounding uses include residential, commercial,public/semi-public and industrial_ 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Green Cities California,a local government coalition,produced a Master Environmental Assessment (AEA)that summarizes existing studies on the environmental impacts of single use plastic,paper, compostable and reusable bags, as well as the impacts of policy options such as fees and bans on bags. Other Environmental Impact Reports (EIR),EIR Addendums or Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND)have been processed in several jurisdictions in Southern California including Los Angeles County, City of Long Beach, City of Santa Monica, City of Manhattan Beach and City of Calabasas. 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None. Page 2 HB -259- Item 9. - 163 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing Q Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources R1 Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources Q Greenhouse Gas Emissions Q Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation_ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requires, — —� I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact'on the environment,but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has ❑ been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NF TIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided ❑ or m' i ted pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or on s re imp ed upon the proposed project,nothing further is re ' g�, Sigr `e Date �y`r`�Oaj Vt-WOIli� Ate Printed Name Title Page 3 Item 9. - 164 HB -260- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL L"PACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EK or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section I5063(c)(3)(1)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section X1X at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XIX. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in,the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements: SAMPLE QUESTION. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sign cant Mitigation Significant (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources. 1, 6) El El F1 R1 Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 4 HB -261- Item 9. - 165 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0 11 11 0 regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,2) b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 0 11 11 Q natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1) c) Physically divide an established community? Q (Sources:3) Discussion a)—c): The proposed proj ect requires an amendment to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code via adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. The proposed ordinance would not result in any land use changes,conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy,nor conflict with any habitat or natural community conservation plan.The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. II, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: --a)—induce-substantial-population-grov th in_.anarza-eittier— directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or Li indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1) b) Displace substantial.numbers of existing housing, El 0 11 R1 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1) c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the Q construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1) Discussion a)—c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project would not contribute to development of additional housing and would not generate population either directly or indirectly.The project would not displace existing housing or existing residents and would not require any replacement housing.No impacts would occur Page 5 Item 9. - 166 HB -262- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and no further analysis is required. M.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on El 0 the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 1 ) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 1) iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? (Sources: 1 ) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is located in a seismically active region of Southern California and is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake,as well as seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction.However,the proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide only.The project does not include any development,thus implementation of the proposed ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking,or seismic related ground failure.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or Q changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading, or fill? (Sources: 1) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or Q that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1 ) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1 ) Page 6 HB -263- Item 9. - 167 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of Q septic tams or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Sources: 1) Discussion b)—e): As discussed in Section III(a)above,the project does not include any development and therefore would not result in soil erosion,loss of topsoil or involve excavation,grading or fill activities.The project would not place structures or people in areas that are located on expansive soil,and would therefore not create any risks associated with expansive soils.Additionally,the project would not involve soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic or wastewater disposal systems.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required N.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge Q requirements? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) Discussion: The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.It is anticipated that the reduction of plastic cant'-out bags would incrementally reduce the amount of litter in the City that enters the storm drains,thereby improving water quality.However,potential increased reliance on paper carry-out bags may result in increased manufacturing wastes that can potentially impact water quality or waste discharge requirements.The promotion of reuseable bags could also potentially affect water quality if reuseable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that enters the storm drain system.Potentially significant water quality impacts as a result of bag _------------_____ manufacturingprocesses will be further aualzed by the project ElR _ ____ ,___._____ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere Q Q substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner whicli would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a Page 7 Item 9. - 168 HB -264- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant upP g ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) Discussion b)—d): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any development, and implementation of the proposed ordinance would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area,deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the B ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) Discussion: See Discussion under Section IV(a). f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1,6, 10) Discussion: See discussion under Section IV(a). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ �( mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rabe Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1,4, 10) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1,4, 10) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ �( injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1,4, 10) Discussion g)—i): Although some areas in Huntington Beach that would be affected by the City's proposed ordinance are located within a 100-year Flood Zone area,the ordinance does not include any new development and drainage patterns would not be affected upon implementation.Therefore,the City's proposed ordinance would not result in impacts to hydrology and water quality related to the 100-year Flood Zone and no further analysis is required. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 1) Page 8 HB -265- Item 9. - 169 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact i Discussion: The proposed ordinance would affect some areas in Huntington Beach that are located near the Pacific Ocean and could be subject to seiche or tsunami.However,implementation of the ordinance would not include any new development and would not result in an increase in population.Therefore,the proposed ordinance would not be expected to increase the risk and hazard to individuals residing in areas that lie in the vicinity of coastal waters of being subject to inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. i k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction �( activities? (Sources: 1, 6) El 11 0 Ed 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? (Sources: 1, 6) Discussion k)-1): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the ! issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. The project does not include any development,and implementation of the proposed ordinance would not impact stormwater runoff from construction or post- construction activities.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater ❑ pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources: 1,6) _. .__.---- ---------- ------------------ Discussion: The proposed proj ect involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.A large proportion of carry-out bags discarded end up as litter or in a landfill.Even bags collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter and can enter storm drains or be transported to the Pacific Ocean.Potentially significant impacts from carry-out bags as waste in relation to handling or storage and delivery areas will be analyzed by the project EIR. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to ❑ 0 ❑ affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) Page 9 Item 9. - 170 HB -266- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting 7nfonnation Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact _ Discussion: The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of _ plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.Urban runoff from rainfall and non-stormwater runoff from human activities is collected and transported through the City's storm drain system and ultimately discharged into the Pacific Ocean. Carry-out bags that enter the storm drain system as a result of litter may affect storm water flow by clogging drains,redirecting flow,or ultimately be released into the Pacific Ocean.These impacts can affect the beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean by contaminating and visually degrading the marine ecosystem. Impacts related to the discharge of carry-out bag litter into the Pacific Ocean are potentially significant and will be analyzed by the proj ect Ea o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) Discussion: The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any development, and implementation of the proposed ordinance would not require construction of new structures or additional stormwater infrastrtacture.Although plastic bag litter can block waterways resulting in changes in waterflow to surrounding areas,it is not the sole source.Implementation of the proposed ordinance and the prohibition of the distribution of plastic carry-out bags would reduce negative impacts to flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff.Additionally,the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems would remain unchanged.Less than significant impacts would occur and no further analysis is required p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) Discussion: The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any development,and would not create or contribute increases in erosion.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 5, 10) Discussion: The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. The project does not include any development,and would not result in regional or localized construction impacts to air quality.However,operational impacts including indirect emissions based on life-cycle assessments of carry-out bags, pollutant emissions resulting from disposal of paper carry-out bags in landfills and emissions resulting from delivery trips may result in Page 10 HB -267- Item 9. - 171 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact potentially significant impacts to air quality,and will be further analyzed in the project EIR_ c b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El ElQ El concentrations? (Sources: 5) Discussion: The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools,playgrounds, athletic facilities,healthcare facilities,and retirement homes.There are many sensitive receptors within the City of Huntington Beach; however,the proposed ordinance does not include any development or construction activitites, and would be expected to result in less than significant impacts to air quality in relation to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.No further analysis is required. c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ El �7 of people? (Sources: 5) Discussion: The proposed ordinance would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags,which would not result in i any new development or construction activity and,therefore,would not create any objectionable odors.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicableEl El El air quality plan? (Sources: 5) Discussion: The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin,which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the air quality standards are met and,if they're not met,to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded,the air basin is classified as being in `attainment' or`non-attainment'.The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for both federal and state standards for ozone and particulate matter(PUo and PNC.5).The basin currently exceeds several state and federal ambient air quality standards and is required to implement strategies that would reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. This non-attainment status is a result of several factors, the primary ones being the naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants,the limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate pollutants in the air, and the number,type,and density of emission sources within the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD has adopted an Air.Quality Management Plan(AQMP)that provides a strategy for the attainment of state and federal air quality standards. The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten (10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. Generally, a project would conflict with or potentially obstruct implementation of an air quality plan if the project would contribute to population growth in excess of that forecasted in the AQMP. The proposed ordinance does not include the construction of residences or other physical structures and would not otherwise involve population growth. Therefore,the proposed ordinance would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and no further analysis is required. Page II Item 9. - 172 HB -268- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant. ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 5) Discussion: Although the proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the amount of plastic and paper carry-out bags and promote a shift towards use of reusable bags in Huntington Beach, a potential change in the number of truck trips associated with delivering and distributing carry-out bags to retailers could increase long-term operational emissions.Impacts related to long-term emissions will be further analyzed in the project EIR. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy ❑ El 0 ❑ establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? (Sources: 1) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1) Discussion a)—b): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the amount of plastic and paper carry-out bags and promote a shift towards reusable bags.While the proposed ordinance does not include any physical development or construction activities,the shift toward reusable bags could alter regional truck trips associated with delivering bags to retailers.However,the shift toward reusable bags would generate a negligible change in regional vehicle trips and would not conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy measuring the performance of the circulation system.The anticipated change in truck travel patterns would not impact existing level of service standards or other applicable standards related to road or highway congestion.Less than significant impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either ❑ ❑ ❑ Q an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed ordinance woud not affect air traffic patterns.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required Page 12 HB -269- Item 9. - 173 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ [� (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 1) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion d)—fl: The proposed ordinance would not include any physical development,new land uses or construction activities that could result in hazards due to a design feature, or inadequate emergency access or parking capacity.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed ordinance is intended to promote the use of reusable bags and would not conflict with any programs,policies, or plans supporting alternative transportation.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications,on any species identified as _ a candidate_sensitiye or special status species in local or _ regional plans,policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,5, 10) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach shares a direct biological connection with coastal ecosystems. Located in Orange County's northern coastal area,Huntington Beach's geography is characterized by broad, sandy beaches backed by low bluffs and mesas,and lowland areas with extensive wetlands.Additionally, Huntington Beach is bordered by the Pacific Ocean along an approximately 9.5 mile western boundary. Although the City is almost completely urbanized,the General Plan identifies several types of biological resources that exist within and surrounding City limits including marine waters, plant life, and wildlife. The proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the use of plastic and paper carry-out bags and promote a shift in the use of reuseable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers.Although it is anticipated that the proposed ordinance would not result in adverse impacts related to biological resources,promoting the use of reuseable bags could potentially affect sensitive species if reusable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that enters the storm drain system and ultimately into coastal and marine environments.Potentially significant impacts to biological resources as they relate to candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations will be analyzed by the project EIR. Page 13 Item 9. - 174 HB -270- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 5, 10) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Q ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 1, 5, 10) Discussion b)—c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any physical development or construction activities that would result in removal,filling,hydrological interruption, etc.of wetlands,and would not alter or remove any existing riparian habitat or identified sensitive natural community. However,promoting the use of reuseable bags could potentially affect protected wetlands,a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community if reuseable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that is deposited into coastal and marine environments.Potentially significant impacts to biological resources related to riparian habtitats or other sensitive communities identified in local or regional plans or federally protected wetlands will be analyzed by the project EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ Q resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,5, 10) Discussion: There are no known migratory wildlife corridors or native nursery wildlife nursery sites within Huntington Beach.However,various trees, shrubs,bushes and marine ecosystems could be considered potential nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species.The proposed project does not include any physical development or construction activity and would not alter or remove any existing vegetation or habitat within the City.Therefore,the proj ect would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.No impacts would occur and father analysis is not required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1, 5) Discussion: The proposed project does not include any physical development or construction activity and would not alter or remove any existing vegetation or habitat within the City.The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. Page 14 H13 -271- Item 9. - 175 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ [.� Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1,5) Discussion: The proposed project does not include any physical development or construction activity and would not alter or remove any existing vegetation or habitat within the City.The project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan.No impacts would cccur and no further analysis is required. VIH. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project . _.. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1, 5) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ Q mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan? (Sources: 1, 5) Discussion a)—b): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The proposed ordinance would not affect known state,regional, or local mineral resources.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. M HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. --------.____Wauld_the�ra}ect:___ --- ----- ------------------- — ------------_...--- -__------------_-_ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1, 5) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1, 5) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous material, substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1, 5) Discussion a)—c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the Page 15 Item 9. - 176 HB -272- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IS SUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.Cairy--out bags do not meet the criteria of a hazardous substance, and the ordinance would not involve the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials. The ordinance does not include any development that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment through upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials.Numerous schools exist within the City of Huntington Beach;however,the proposed ordinance would not include any physical elements that would involve the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of El 11 �( hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,5, 8) Discussion: The proposed citywide ordinance does not include any new development,and implementation would not produce significant hazards to the public or the environment created by activity on a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, El El El �( where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources:1,7) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El El El �( would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1,7) Discussion e)—f): Although the City of Huntington Beach is located within the Planning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos,the proposed ordinance does not include any development and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the City.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ElQ �( adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry- out bags would not include any development and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, QEl El (� Page 16 HB -273- Item 9. - 177 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact injury, or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed project does not include any new development and therefore would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildand fires.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in F . . Q 0.. Q excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1,2) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1,2) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 1:1 El Q in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Sources: 1,2) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport;would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 7) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El 11 ❑ 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 7) Discussion a)—l): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide. The project does not include any new development,and would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards or excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. Page 17 Item 9. - 178 HB -274- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XL JPU13LIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 1) 11 DQ b) Police Protection? (Sources: 1) El 11 El Q c) Schools? (Sources: 1) El 11 El Discussion a)—c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. The project would not result in new development or land use changes resulting in impacts to existing fire and police protection services, or existing school facilities.No impacts would occur and further analysis is not required. d) Parks? (Sources: 1) �( e) Other public facilities or governmental services? Q (Sources: 1.) ]Discussion d)—e): The implementation of the proposed ordinance will involve enforcement and education outreach to residents and business owners by City staff.City parks are cleaned and otherwise maintained by City staff on a regular basis.It is not anticipated that prohibiting the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases and establishing a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags will result in significant impacts to parks maintenance.Impacts to city government services and facilities are anticipated to be less than significant, and no further investigation is required. XH. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proj ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El 11 El applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ 11 El Q wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing Page 18 xB -275- Item 9. - 179 Potentially Significant _ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water Q drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1) d). Have_sufficient water.supplies.available to.serve.the ...Q El project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment QEl provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1) Discussion a)—e): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The proposed project would not involve the addition of people or new land uses that would require new water, stormwater drainage or wastewater treatment facilities or exceed wastewater treatment requirements or capacity of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.However, it is expected that the ordinance may lead to an increased use of reuseable bags within Huntington Beach.As opposed to plastic carry-out bags,reuseable bags are intended to be used tun_es_over_many_months or years_As_these_hags become_dirty_from multiple uses_it is_erected_ _____. that owners will hand wash or launder the bags. The hand washing of reuseable bags or inclusion of reuseable bags in routine laundering would not result in any substantial increase in demand for potable water,therefore, the project would not result in a significant increase in water consumption that was not previously planned for in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.Less than significant impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity El El El to accommodate the project's solid.waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1, 11) Discussion: Rainbow Environmental Services(RES) is the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for Huntington Beach.RES operates a transfer station within Huntington Beach as well as two Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) through which all solid waste is processed.RES's transfer station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day,and current utilization ranges between 53 and 71 percent.In addition,the two MRFs sort and separate all waste and recycle all appropriate materials reducing the waste generation going to the landfills. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department(IWMD)currently owns and operates three active landfills that serve the Orange County region,including:Frank R.Bowerman Landfill in Irvine;Olinda Page 19 Item 9. - 180 HB -276- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Alpha Landfill in Brea;and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano.All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills and have a combined design capacity of 2 0,5 00 tons per day. Solid waste from Huntington Beach would be sent to the Frank R.Bowerman Landfill in Irvine with a permitted capacity limit of 8,500 tons per day. Prior to 2008,Assembly Bill(AB)939 established a requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the year 2000.Based on data from 2006,the City of Huntington Beach maintained a 71 percent diversion rate from Orange County landfills,thereby meeting and exceeding the requirement.In 2008,California enacted Senate Bill(SB) 1016,which modified the system of measuring a juridiction's compliance with solid waste disposal requirements previously under AB 939. SB 10I6 established a per-capita disposal rate as the instrument of measurement.The City of Huntington Beach is subject to a per resident disposal rate target of 10.4 pounds per person per day(PPD).According to dataa from annual reports submitted by the City and published by CalRecycle,the City's PPD rate dropped from 5.5 in 2007 to 4.6 in 2009,demonstrating compliance with SB 1016. The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The proposed ordinance does not include any development or construction activity.The resulting shift towards reusable bags would reuce the amount of plastic and paper carry-out bags that are sent to the local landfill.Thus,the proposed ordinance would reduce the amount of solid waste generated within the City.Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1) Discussion: As discussed above,the adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of plastic carry-out bags city-,vide and establishing a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags would incrementally reduce the amount of solid waste generation created by the use of plastic and paper carry-out bags.The proj ect would comply with regulations pertaining to solid waste.Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control ❑ ❑ ❑ Best Management Practice(BMP),(e.g.water quality treatment basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: 1) Discussion: The project does not include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control BMP.No impacts would result and further analysis is not required. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project.- a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El El El (Sources: 1) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including but not El limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1) Page 20 HB -277- Item 9. - 181 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1) El El El Discussion a)-c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags. One of the main objectives of implementing the proposed ordinance is to reduce the amount and visibility of litter associated with plastic carry-out bags.When improperly disposed of(i.e.,not recycled or sent to a landfill),plastic bags may be blown away due to their light weight and end up as litter.The City's economy relies on maintaining a clean recreation environment, which includes regular removal of litter from City beaches,parks and other public areas.Also,although.neither State Route 39 (Beach Boulevard)or Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway)are designated State scenic highways within the City of Huntington Beach,a positive visual image on these two major corridors is important. Implementation of the proposed ordinance would reduce negative visual impacts of litter within Huntington Beach and improve scenic resources. Therefore,impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which El El would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed project does not include any development and will not result in the creation of a new source of light or glare.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a -- - -— - - ---- -------- --------- -- -- ----- ----- --Q--- �- - -- ❑ _-. -��_..--- - historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources: 1 ) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El El El an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources: 1 ) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological El El El resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1 ) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El El ElQ outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1 ) Page 21 Item 9. - 182 HB -278- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a)—d): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any development or alterations of physical sites or structures.The project would not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource,directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature,nor disturb any human remains.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood,community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 10) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ 11 the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1, 10) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 1, 10) Discussion a)—c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.As discussed in Section XIII above,beach litter and contamination of other recreational sites can negatively impact recreational opportunities.Plastic debris including plastic carry-out bags contributes to beach and park litter, and the visual impact of litter detracts from people's perceptions of the quality of recreational facilities.The combination of physical contamination of beach areas and the perceived lower quality of coastal waters may negatively impact beach use and recreation. Negative impacts on the beaches and other aspects of the environment could affect tourism and the City's economy. One of the main objectives of implementing the proposed ordinance is to reduce the amount and visibility of litter associated with plastic carry-out bags,and implementation of the proposed ordinance would reduce negative impacts of litter within Huntington Beach. The project does not include any development and would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities nor result in physical deterioration of such facilities.The project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,and would reduce negative impacts on existing recreational facilities relating to the visibility and amount of litter.Less than significant impacts would occur and no further analysis is required_ Page 22 HB -279- Item 9. - 183 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland_ Would the proj ect a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Q - of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown-on-the. ....... maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1,2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1,2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources. 1,2 ) Discussion a)—c): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The project does not include any development and not,result_in the conversion of Farmland to non_aaricultusal use_changes in the existing environment__ which could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use,nor conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract.No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. XVH. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or Q ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of Q ❑ ❑ ❑ greenhouse gases? Discussion a)—b): The proposed project involves adoption of an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carry-out bags in point of sale purchases citywide and would establish a ten.(10)cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags.The proposed project does not include any physical development, construction activities, or land use changes that would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the amount of plastic and paper carry-out bags and promote a Page 23 Item 9. - 184 HB -280- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact shift towards reusable bags.Although overall carry-out bag use is anticipated to decline as a result of the proposed ordinance,the shift toward reusable bags would potentially alter traffic patterns in Huntington Beach related to the transport of plastic and paper carry-out bags as well as processing activities related to bag production and disposal of carry-out bags such that there may be a significant impact on the environment related to greenhouse gas emissions. The EIR will analyze whether the proposed ordinance would conflict with any plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and evaluate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions impacts associated with the project. XVffi.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality El 11 El of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1,6, 10) Discussion: As discussed in Section XIV Cultural Resources,the project does not include any development or alterations of physical sites or structures.The project would not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource,directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature,nor disturb any human remains.The project would have no impact on cultural resources. As discussed in Section V11 Biological Resources,the City is almost completely urbanized,yet the General Plan identifies several types of biological resources that exist within and surrounding City limits including marine waters,plant life,and wildlife.The proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the use of plastic and paper carry-out bags and promote a shift in the use of reuseable bags by Huntington Beach retail customers. Although it is anticipated that the proposed ordinance would not result in adverse impacts related to.biological resources,promoting the use of reuseable bags could potentially affect sensitive species and their habitat if reusable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that enters the storm drain system and ultimately into coastal and marine environments.Because the proposed ordinance would have the potential to affect sensitive species or habitat,potentially significant impacts to biological resources as they relate to candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations will be further analyzed in the proj ect EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ El limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 1,2,5) Page 24 HB -281- Item 9. - 185 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed ordinance does have potential air quality,biological resources,greenhouse gas emissions and hydrology/water quality impacts that could be significant and cumulatively considerable.These potentially significant impacts will be discussed in the project EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which willEa 11 El cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1,2, 5) Discussion: The proposed ordinance has potential for adverse effects to human beings related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and hydrology/water quality_The potential for significant impacts will be discussed I --in-the project EIR .._._ .... _ ..._.. . _ --... ..:_.__.. _..._ .._._.... . ....... i i Page 25 Item 9. - 186 HB _282_ XIX. EARLIER ANALYSIS/SOURCE LIST_ Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).Earlier documents prepared and utilized in this analysis and referenced sources are as follows: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington.Beacb General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,2000 Main Street,P Floor,Huntington Beach,and at www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Governmentf Departments/Planning/gp 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Ordinance Office,2000 Main Street,2 Floor, Huntington Beach,and at www.huntingtonbe.achca.gov/government/ charter—codes 3 Huntington Beach Map Attachment No. 1 4 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(December 3,2004) City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,2000 Main Street,3r1 Floor,Huntington Beach,and at www.huntingtonbeachc&gov/GovernTnenV Departments/Planning/flood 5 CEQA Air Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District(1443) 6 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook 7 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Farces Training Base Los Alamitos (Oct. 17, 2002) 8 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List wAw.caloa.gov/siteelegpup/coites 4 City of Huntinb on Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,2nd Floor, Huntington Beach,and at. www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/ charter codes 10 Green Cities California Master Environmental Assessment http:/t"A,.geencitiescalifomia.orelmea 11 CalRecycle Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentraVr Qols/MARS,fDRMCMain.AD Page 26 HB -283- Item 9. - 187 Westminster I :lilily Seal Beach = i �_`' I l 241 �5f c: 4•e„�s..,.`l1x' 4 � 1I r�' 'L_ I 11' I2,4 (—�_� :I , bz, f - - - 4.-_ "c`r >.� 4- _�,_il.L f— �..v'.L I ���f,.—;li. L_=-j � J ` -r ` Fountain Valley s zVii f u h County r — 77 J`I, IL `>4rt ..6<>a^s r S y,✓ 1I r -i I"1 �7-gg I— 1 — r r Costa 1_yam, w�.,4g s�.x ,��`t-i¢�s� rty`� _ � x,�c� .7=-rr I-����,.�_.'•.—F�f�'� � Mesa .K - •� '+ r `." 4 '` .a .s..,r .._ a 1 $I=,— ! �,•. I Imo_' ll_._. .«i�z�� _-�' "S �yE � M h"S•-- : "%'- jam.. 5- `" /" . � .................�� Cc C t..• •x+ •yam - �£.`' _, c .a z- .cam..£ x W. Newport Beach untin2ton Beach CITYBOUNDAPY _ Map produced by infommfion contained in the City of STREET CENTERLINES(OCTACIas--J' Huntington Beach Information Services Department I Smartsfreet Q }, r Geographic Information System.Information warranted for ?, City use only.Huntington Beach does not guarantee its ti4 Mojectors � e completeness or accuray. ajor 3 Map Produced on 1118t2011 fi Secondary `=�� --—` N r ` Residential , Travelway � R Apes+ a ?ax s � ISOBATHS l} 6498 12996 HARBOR One inch equals 6498 feet PIER Item 9. - 188 HB -284- HB -285- Item 9. - 189 k ENVIRONMENTALBOARD 06- oer M 2011 'Hayden eckmn City of:Huntiv,on ae-ach Departrrcertd Plartrsing and Building: 2000 MA In:St Huntington teach,CA 3 Subject: Erivironmer #Assessme.ht,Na_2411F Dear Mr:.Beclanart, At the-Dece�- r t,2011 Environmehtal '3 rd nesting,a team of'boa;d embers presented then review of the.Environrnenta!Checklist Form N_o. 201 t-t�W The Board tect�€�nizes thjs prearn I �c;a�lclist as th e first phase multi-step:process i Yse.sco e of this che6kiist fs to identify, tar e mr-ems Or the: FrQject)?R 1 eoffer the fol Ong ci?Cr-rMents for;yc your consideration_ Generals j 4 :proj r. .} .., ��re are phased; to see-the ueneral of'actives stag an t "act ro �t and in the project ;fe ription> We are interested,in,sing. sducatior Obi Ves.1denti red in'the rrirrrurty outreach pfians w mated izrtplementaon� goals.We understand that subse tent to this ecktrsi actions Mill be undettakgrn to foalize:'and presenter)the C€tys p ordinance b) the. d6beach and c4rrimur{ic Mons n for tfte plas#ic bap lean albnq with c)#fie wg6i and iterafii— environmental and d)a.onornie rnonitor'_ng of the ban.and tts-subsequent eft coupled with e) long, # % _ Hy+dIr ogy . ibis:,ass r Fh t a).Tfd. disagree with yoi r�discussion that"The pror nop o;;reuse;lam age eoutd also potentially affitirt water quality if reusable bare i,mproperly'disrr�d. of and bocomr'te � that eaters the-storm systems.° Piastic carryRoui Aga, generally cna e fro* FEl E [BI'=; sir tit plait e. constituents, enter'the st Urn systems:t causel they are.ligh�r igk Due to. their r°�e,cbt; reusable plastic boas thatare a rrtirirrfium.of 2.25 millimeters thicK canvas bags, and:.otflex fiber based oafs world not-be camp En the air anal:deposited ire norm drains or into ocean watervways. Air Quality, l-iscussion V e): We dipagres witi .your.discussion change in the num,ber or truck it s associated�xiiah tlefrveri a€rd distributing.c ry pt to teisilers:ppulct increase;long-term o�ional':erztissions This dispussion:needs clarifice+�an, as it appears io corr> 'ne the impacts of pi €c and reusable bags:.We recortraend that you analyze the potential che.nge,i- �u�#rips and, asSQ � € e isslons based on`tt e difference betweerl i) the wrr er4.truck Op,,--- n0 as`= qlteol air.. emiss40M fbT del4very and +distribution o all cart-rout;bags ,(4q h plpsfic and pa �rrd:�s tqe bags and h�the t otentiaVfuttre:-trick s 014-ass iated emissioWfor delivery and di SO t tt:?r[ of reusable bags and caret paper bags. _ Item 9. - 190 xB -286- #3laiog%cal ResPctr s_; Discsissic�ns Mil a'i aid bq cj 446"disagrc i ith your. diseussto s.t .,.prr mating tt use of: erisaole _bags eouki votei}t #lya sensit 'species'if, reus b bags a lmpToperly dispr�sec# € anc}'t a inter fat enters story T"systerrn and ultimately`rito co6s€ai a barine enV1rofiM6nW and f "pforr#arrg the;use.c�f reusai�Ee bags could potentially afft,prtsted weflaltds, a atparian rat or other se rve �rW commun4...;" Flat s'c 00r( t bags, gemF-71Ut de,fromP t_t]PE, ar:other plasNq, bonslituehts, ernter tine storrrt s #ergs be tlPY any lightweigti Rue to their weight reusaWe plastic bags.that.area.minimum Of'7. Millirneters thick; canvas baggy, or r�#her fitner Ia tags. Wo6jd not .be carried in the air logo depgsito itt storm drairns or into oc.e.an waterway$_ Recreation- 1 �scussion:X�!aj ' agree wttlt'Y.Gurfliscussic rx:, but disagree With the assessrrtent that there will'be Less than=Sie�tirfcanf fw C.r. Ttr rimy,be .only. a: semantii; disagreetr�rit but file logic statements-p:eser ted in".paragfaplt a ark bf da not mean that'no further analysis is;required Please lrlcl.ude these topics in the Project Eil11 scope. Green Nt>vse'Uas 1=r�iissint Qiseuss,or�?W%a}= ); We d gree rig i your discussion that'�tlte sttrtttowrard rou ble nags would potentially alter traffic patterns fn,Hun€ingtoh Beach related to toe trenspott of;plastic and lam curry- flat'baas �(ife questioh:tF�e assEzmption. made explicit els"he , ti afio€xly CHC�-Ak B models and data be [used. M'urge that the consultant also consider data...pm eAsting traff is flaw databases: Furthermore, the reference to"processing activities related to bag production and disposal" implies ttna :rnuririg ar.carry out bags exist virithirn the City Of.Hunfixjton Beach ! #ails to $PecifY the': pes'tit canyr=out:lags beiri,g manriiactured-ply.or:.paw or bath. UUe suggest that You ciarti €Ella refereace it an66ry Finditngs af Sig rtificance: Discussion X11IL The category"Potentially Significant impact::' i interpreted t4 mean either positive op arts- Woo t nett.'iesutt .to the:c otegory, or negat Y impacis With harmful resV48 to the categdryr or both. Since:much of the prior work identified in tt-e Matter Envirohmental Assessment nvo3ves`a spec ai, method,cp. Red "Life Gycie Cyst Analysis (WA), we recdmmend expanding LCA to indude rriore robust methadt of analyrsis that include= sustarrability metrics as �s�l as:the milted Ufe-cyc ;ftnandial discounted cash flow techniques' `fie Wrecrate the oppotu,66 to reyiew this project :Please contact us Vvii1 aay.related quo ns or on rns. The:appendix includes Materials reviewed while preparing the:above analysis of e Mastic, `Bag EtR Checklist Sincerely, r. 44tr�, Sue Gordon Chairman,Huntington B—_eb FnVi€mental Board 0 xB -287- Item 9. - 191 STATE OF CALTFORNIA--BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGE7vCY EDMUND G.BROWN Jr..Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3347 Michelson Drive,Suite 100 Irvine,CA 92612-8894 Tel:(949)724 2241 — ✓ ;c Flex your paver! Fax:(949)724-2592 pt Be energy efficient! U ' _ ZC111 December 13,2011 �,rt. ofP,, Hayden Beckham File:IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#: 2011111053 2000 Main Street, 3RD Floor Log#: 2849 &2849A Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: Municipal Code Amendment Regulating the Use of Plastic Carryout Bags and Recyclable Paper Carryout Dear Beckham. Thank you for the opportunity to review.and comment on the Municipal Code Amendment Regulating the Use of Plastic Carryout Bags and Recyclable Paper Carryout. The project consists of a adoption of a proposed ordinance by the City of Huntington Beach City Council that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carryout bag in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach and establish.a ten(10) cent on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all grocery stores and.supermarket, drug stores,pharmacies,convenience stores, food marts and Huntington Beach farmers markets.All stores affected by the proposed ordinance would be required to provide reusable bag to customers for either 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. The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in the Department's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Ed Khosravi at(949) 724-2338. Sincere Christopher Herre,Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Item 9. - 192 HB -288- Appendix Air Quality URBEMIS Results xB -299- Item 9. - 193 r+ Cp ige: 1 12/28/2011 4.31:03 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Huntington Beach Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 W PERATIONAL(VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BD-Q N9x QQ S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 ' .OTALS(Ibs/day, unmitigated) 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 18.25 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROO NQx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS(Ibs/day, unmitigated) 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 18.25 Page: 1 12/28/2011 4:31:12 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Huntington Beach Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES(Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Sore ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single-use Plastic Bag 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 18.25 Ordinance N TOTALSuYirr7itlgted) 0.01 0.12 0 05 0.00 '0.01 0.01 18 25 p Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2011 Temperature (F):80 Season:Summer Emfac:Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single-use Plastic Bag Ordinance 0.48 acres 1.00 0.48 4.31 0.48 4.31 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 0.0 0.8 99.0 0.2 CD r- (JI Page: 2 12/28/2011 4:31:12 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck<3750 Ibs 0.0 2.7 94.6 2.7 Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 81.2 18.8 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 64.3 35.7 0.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length(miles) 12.7 TO 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length(miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds(mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %of Trips-Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 %of Trips-Commercial(by land use) Page: 3 12/28/2011 4:31:12 PM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Single-use Plastic Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Operational Changes to Defaults b7 N W 1-1 Ci) 1 r+ CD INC CC tge: 1 12/30/2011 11:08:06 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Huntington Beach Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Huntington Beach Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 w tv 'PERATIONAL(VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROCS NOx _QQ S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS(lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 13.31 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG Nox _QQ S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 13.31 Page: 1 12/30/2011 11:12:25 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions(Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Huntington Beach Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Huntington Beach Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES(Summer Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated) Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 wSingle-use Plastic Bag 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 17.87 N Ordinance I'DCJ ALS(Ibs/day;unmitigated} 0 01 0 12 0 b5 u' 0 00 tl 01 001 17 87 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year:2011 Temperature(F}:80 Season: Summer Emfac:Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No.Units Total Trips Total VMT Single-use Plastic Bag Ordinance 0.47 acres 1.00 0.47 4.22 0.47 4.22 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 0.0 0.8 99.0 0.2 r+ CD r+ N N p Page: 2 12/30/2011 11:12:25 AM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck<3750 Ibs 0.0 2.7 94.6 2.7 Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 81.2 18.8 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000lbs 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 64.3 35.7 0.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length(miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length(miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds(mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %of Trips-Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 %of Trips-Commercial (by land use) Page: 3 12/30/2011 11:12:25 AM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Single-use Plastic Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Operational Changes to Defaults b� tv J i N O r+- CD N NO Igo: 1 12/30/2011 11:08:06 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2A Summary Report for Summer Emissions(Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Huntington Beach Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Huntington Beach Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 b� N )PERATIONAL(VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROO NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS(Ibs/day,unmitigated) 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 13.31 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2,5 CO2 TOTALS(Ibs/day,unmitigated) 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 13.31 Page: 1 12/30/2011 11.14:13 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Huntington Beach Single Use Alt 3.urb924 Project Name: Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Huntington Beach Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES(Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single-use Plastic Bag 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 13.31 tTJ Ordinance tJ T.OTALS(Ibs/day, ulitYlitl� ted) 0.01 0 09 0.03 0,00, 0.01 Q,00 13,31} Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year. 2011 Temperature(F):80 Season:Summer Emfac:Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single-use Plastic Bag Ordinance 0.35 acres 1.00 0.35 3.14 0.35 3.14 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto _ 0,0 0.8 99.0 0.2 f--a r+ C1) N O W N Page: 2 12/30/2011 11:14:13 AM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck<3750 Ibs 0.0 2.7 94.6 2.7 Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 81.2 18.8 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 100.0 0.0 0,0 100.0 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 p Motorcycle 0.0 64.3 35.7 0.0 O School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length(miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds(mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %of Trips-Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 %of Trips-Commercial (by land use) Page: 3 12/30/2011 11:14:13 AM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Single-use Plastic Bag Ordinanco'' 2.0 1.0 97.0 Operational Changes to Defaults b0 O 1---1 CD N O Cn Appendix C Proposed Huntington Beach Draft Ordinance Item 9. - 206 HB -302- Appendix List of Stores Potentially Affected by the Proposed Ordinance HB -303- Item 9. - 207 N COMPANY NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE PRIMARY SIC DESCRIPTION 5 Star Mobil 20002 Beach Blvd 92648-3739 Service Stations-Gasoline &Oil 00 7-Eleven 8492 Warner Ave 92647-6043 Convenience Stores 80's Purple 7711 Woodwind Dr 92647-7144 Clothing-Retail 99 Cents Only Stores 15962 Springdale St 92649-1729 Variety Stores 99 Cents Only Stores 16672 Beach Blvd 92647-4850 Variety Stores 99 Cents Only Stores 19050 Brookhurst St 92646-2552 Variety Stores Aaron Brothers Art& Framing 7041 Yorktown Ave# 101 92648-2499 Picture Frames-Dealers Active Network 101 Main St#240 92648-8156 Computer Software Adam's Electronics 7130 Edinger Ave 92647-3505 Computer& Equipment Dealers Albertsons 16600 Bolsa Chica St 92649-3583 Grocers-Retail Albertsons 19640 Beach Blvd 92648-2905 Grocers-Retail Albertsons 7201 Yorktown Ave 92648-2465 Grocers-Retail Albertsons Pharmacy 9051 Atlanta Ave 92646-6332 Pharmacies Aleeda Wetsuits 18241 Gothard St 92648-1224 Divers Equipment &Supplies Alex's Lawn Mower Shop 16612 Beach Blvd 92647-4838 Lumber-Retail Alkarma TV 15602 Producer Ln 92649-1310 Television &Radio-Dealers o Ameri-King 17881 Sampson Ln 92647-7148 Aircraft-Manufacturers P American Apparel 207 Main St 92648-5127 Apparel &Garments-Retail AMPM 6002 Bolsa Ave 92647-2443 Convenience Stores Appliance Parts Bank 7573 Slater Ave#A 92647-7754 Appliances-Household-Major-Supls (Whls) Archway Systems Inc 2134 Main St# 160 92648-6447 Computer Software Arthur Enterprises 5181 Argosy Ave 92649-1058 Nurserymen Atomic Aquatics 16742 Burke Ln 92647-4559 Sporting Goods-Retail Autozone 6800 Warner Ave 92647-5304 Automobile Parts &Supplies-Retail-New Baby Gap 18681 Main St 92648-1722 Childrens &Infants Wear-Retail Barnes& Noble 7881 Edinger Ave#110 92647-7639 Book Dealers-Retail Beach Mobil 16001 Beach Blvd 92647-3802 Service Stations-Gasoline &Oil BEVMOI 16672 Beach Blvd#K 92647-4859 Liquors-Retail Big Lots 21082 Beach Blvd 92648-5402 Variety Stores Big Lots 6911 Warner Ave 92647-5305 Variety Stores Bigger Farther Faster 14520 Delta Ln#105 92647-2073 Clothing-Retail Bounce U 5445 Oceanus Dr# 114 92649-1007 Moonwalks Bpmb Inc 19621 Dearborne Cir 92648-6648 Hospitals Burlington Coat Factory 7777 Edinger Ave#100 92647-3640 Department Stores Byran Co 18092 Redondo Cir 92648-1326 Aircraft Equipment Parts &Supls-Mfrs Carters Retail 7881 Edinger Ave#A114 92647-7637 General Merchandise-Retail Check Out Software 16912 Gothard St 92647-5476 Computer Software Chevron 17881 Gothard St 92647-6252 Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Chevron 6972 Warner Ave 92647-5316 Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Choices Apparel Inc 5542 Research Dr 92649-1614 Clothing-Manufacturers Competitvie Aquatic Supply 15661 Container Ln 92649-1532 Swimwear&Accessories-Retail Convenience Retailers 16971 Goldenwest St 92647-5443 Convenience Stores Cookie Jar Collection Inc 17682 Sampson Ln 92647-7739 Bakers-Wholesale Cost Plus World Market 7777 Edinger Ave#136 92647-8689 Furniture-Dealers-Retail CVS Pharmacy 10011 Adams Ave 92646-4904 Pharmacies CVS Pharmacy 19121 Beach Blvd 92648-2307 Pharmacies CVS Pharmacy 5295 Warner Ave 92649-4079 Pharmacies Diane's 118 Main St 92648-5126 Swimwear&Accessories-Retail Earth Friendly Techoologies 17011 Beach Blvd#225 92647-7419 Cosmetics& Perfumes-Retail tu Edinger Market&Gas 5002 Edinger Ave 92649-1436 Service Stations-Gasoline &Oil Exon Mobile 17222 Pacific Coast Hwy 92649-4116 Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Fnyl Vinyl 15201 Pipeline Ln#A 92649-5704 Fence Contractors Five Point's Shell 18502 Beach Blvd 92648-2017 Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Forever 21 155 5th St# 141 92648-5116 Clothing-Retail Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt 16672 Beach Blvd 92647-4850 Grocers-Retail G & M Oil Co Inc 16868 A Ln 92647-4831 Business Management Consultants Golden Spoon 7862 Warner Ave# D 92647-7364 Yogurt GUESS 155 5th St 92648-5101 Clothing-Retail Home Depot 19101 Magnolia St 92646-2233 Home Centers Home Depot 7100 Warner Ave 92647-8404 Home Centers Hunting Beach Delillo 18211 Beach Blvd 92648-1308 Automobile Dealers-New Cars Huntington Beach 76 21471 Brookhurst St 92646-7324 Service Stations-Gasoline &Oil Huntington Garden Ctr 19121 Brookhurst St 92646-2553 Nurserymen Huntington Surf&Sport 300 Pacific Coast Hwy# 104 92648-5107 Sportswear-Retail Jo-Ann Fabrics & Crafts 15031 Goldenwest St 92647-2710 Fabric Shops �.� Jo-Ann Fabrics &Crafts 9901 Adams Ave 92646-4809 Fabric Shops Justice Just For Girls 7777 Edinger Ave# 144 92647-8690 Girls Apparel N O r+ CD N Kanvas By Katin PO Box 223 90743-0223 Knit Outerwear Mills (Mfrs) Kohl's Department Store 7777 Edinger Ave#140 92647-8669 Department Stores Kohl's Department Store 9811 Adams Ave 92646-4807 Department Stores L-3 GA Intl Inc 7402 Prodan Dr 92648-1207 Marine Electronic Equip&Supls (Whls) Lamps Plus 7262 Edinger Ave 92647-3506 Lighting Fixtures-Retail Laptops 4 Less 10034 Adams Ave 92646-4905 Computer& Equipment Dealers Lenscrafters 7777 Edinger Ave# 146 92647-8666 Optical Goods-Retail Lowe's Home Improvement 8175 Warner Ave 92647-8251 Home Centers Marshalls 16672 Beach Blvd# F 92647-4837 Department Stores Men's Wearhouse 7738 Edinger Ave 92647-3607 Men's Clothing &Furnishings-Retail Michaels 7600 Edinger Ave #A 92647-3605 Craft Supplies Mother's Market& Kitchen's 19770 Beach Blvd 92648-5927 Health &Diet Foods-Retail O'Reilly Auto Parts 18900 Beach Blvd 92648-2092 Automobile Parts &Supplies-Retail-New Office Depot 7742 Edinger Ave 92647-3607 Office Supplies Old Navy 18543 Main St 92648-1709 Clothing-Retail Old World Restaurant 7561 Center Ave#38 92647-3038 Coffee&Tea tr Orchard Supply Hardware 19330 Goldenwest St 92648-2113 Hardware-Retail w Party City 16100 Beach Blvd 92647-3805 Party Supplies 0 Pep Boys 19122 Brookhurst St 92646-2554 Automobile Parts &Supplies-Retail-New PETCO 5961 Warner Ave 92649-4659 Pet Supplies & Foods-Retail PETCO 8909 Adams Ave 92646-3330 Pet Supplies & Foods-Retail PETSMART 7600 Edinger Ave 92647-3605 Pet Supplies& Foods-Retail Pier 1 Imports 18501 Main St 92648-1709 Furniture-Dealers-Retail Prizes 5242 Argosy Ave 92649-1074 Toys-Manufacturers Quiksilver Wetsuits Inc 15202 Graham St 92649-1109 Surfboards Ralphs 19081 Goldenwest St 92648-2151 Grocers-Retail Ralphs 5241 Warner Ave 92649-4060 Grocers-Retail REI 7777 Edinger Ave# 138 92647-8689 Sporting Goods-Retail Revelation Records PO Box 5232 92615-5232 Music Dealers Rite Aid 5881 Warner Ave 92649-4657 Pharmacies Ross Dress For Less 7201 Warner Ave 92647-5431 Department Stores Seacliff Liquor 402 17th St 92648-4212 Liquors-Retail Silver Star Pet 15662 Graham St 92649-1611 Pet Foods-Wholesale Smart& Final 6882 Edinger Ave 92647-3402 Grocers-Retail Smart& Final 9062 Adams Ave 92646-3402 Grocers-Retail Southern Hemisphere Wine 5973 Engineer Dr 92649-1129 Wines-Retail Sport Chalet 16242 Beach Blvd 92647-3702 Sporting Goods-Retail Sprint 7621 Edinger Ave#106 92647-8684 Cellular Telephones (Services) Staples 7131 Yorktown Ave 92648-2464 Office Supplies Staples 7881 Edinger Ave#130 92647-7639 Office Supplies Stater Bros Markets 10114 Adams Ave 92646-4907 Grocers-Retail Stater Bros Markets 7101 Warner Ave 92647-5429 Grocers-Retail Stein Mart 19041 Beach Blvd 92648-2305 Department Stores T-Mobile 7821 Edinger Ave# 142 92647-7636 Cellular Telephones (Services) T-Mobile 8112 Talbert Ave#101 92646-1519 Cellular Telephones (Services) Target 9882 Adams Ave 92646-4808 Department Stores Tessworks PO Box 1894 92647-1894 Ceramic Products-Decorative Third Degree Sportswear 15422 Electronic Ln 92649-1334 Women's Misses/Jrs Outerwear Nec (Mfrs) Tilly's 18545 Main St 92648-1709 Clothing-Retall Toys R Us 7212 Edinger Ave# B 92647-3578 Toys-Retail td Trader Joe's 18681 Main St#101 92648-1722 Grocers-Retail c J Tru West Inc 5592 Engineer Dr 92649-1122 Sporting&Athletic Goods Nec(Mfrs) Vanguard Electronics Co 7412 Prince Dr 92647-4553 Transformers-Manufacturers Vans 18589 Main St 92648-1709 Shoes-Retail Victory Professional Products 18281 Enterprise Ln 92648-1216 Beauty Salons-Equipment&Supis (Whis) Vons 5922 Edinger Ave 92649-1706 Grocers-Retail Vons 8891 Atlanta Ave 92646-7119 Grocers-Retail Vu-Revisions Best Of The Best 4136 Shorebreak Dr 92649-2183 Automobile Parts &Supplies-Retail-New Walgreens 17522 Beach Blvd 92647-6802 Pharmacies Walgreens 19501 Beach Blvd 92648-2902 Pharmacies Walmart 8230 Talbert Ave 92646-1545 Department Stores West Marine 16390 Pacific Coast Hwy#10C 92649-1800 Marine Equipment&Supplies Wet Seal 18587 Main St 92648-1709 Clothing-Retail Whole Foods Market 7881 Edinger Ave#150 92647-7639 Grocers-Retail Zadro Products 5332 System Dr 92649-1529 Mirrors ..� Sunset Beach Factory Direct Yachts PO Box 1476 92659-0476 N Item 9. - 212 xB -308- ATTACHMENT #4 n —x HUNTING. `. +. - C �ll�nica to To:.,, Honorable Mayor and City Council Members. . From. Connie Boardman, City Council Me Devirt Dwyer, City Council Member _. Jae Shaw City Council Member`' Date: July 22, 2011 Subject: CITY-COt1NCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR AUGUST 15 24111 CITE COUNCIL MEETING-PLASTIC BAG ORDINANCE STATEMENT QF ISSUE: Qcean.pollution is a major concerin for many wb live in a beach community such as ours. -Throughout oceans of the`world,,.plastic bags are the primary source of plastic pollution according to e 2009 publication by the United Nations Environmental Program_. Plastic,bags not only have a negative aesthetic impacf`in our ocean'and on our beaches,these bags kill wildlife_ As;plastic bags.degrade and break into smaller and smaller pieces,animals such-as sea turtles and seabirds`mistakenly consume them:;.Consumption of plastic can block the digestivesystem`and cause animals to starve. Other local governments such as the County of Los Angeles. the City of tong Beach;(a copy of the ordinance from the City.of'Long Beach is provided as an example);the, It of Calabasas, And the City-of Manhattan Beach:have enacted ordinances to reduce the use of:single use plastic bags. On July 14 of this year, the California Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to pass.ordinances to restrict the use of these bags. We realize forsome in our community the purchase of reusable bags to replace the plastic bags might be a hardship: The Surfrider Foundation has committed to hosting monthlyreusable bag give-a-ways. Rainbow Disposal.has agreed to.donate reusable bags for distribution from the Rogers Senior Center, Oakiview Community Center, and other locations in the at our recommend action would not ban the:use.of plastic bags used for the collection of dog, - ;waste such:.as-those-distributed_a_dog beach - - - -------- -- -- - RECOMMENDED ACTION: Request that city staff,develop an ordinance to require stores located in the C►ty.0f.Hunting" Beach replace single use plastic shopping bags;m6th reusable.bags: "Reusable bag means a bag'fhat can be used 125 times or more, Attachment Xc; Fred Wilson, City Manager j Bob Half;Deputy City Manager. Paul Emery, Deputy City Manager Jennifer McGrath, &ity Attorney Joan Flynn, City Clerk Item 9. - 214 HB -3 t o- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable City Council Members From: Connie Boardman, Mayor Joe Shaw, City Council Member Date: February 4, 2013 Subject: CITY COUNCIL ITEM FOR FEBRUARY 4, 2013—SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG REDUCTION ORDINANCE STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On August 15, 2011, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for the reduction of single-use plastic bags within certain Huntington Beach retail establishments. The City Council subsequently authorized a contract with Rincon Consultants to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed ordinance in the amount of $29,948.00. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 2011-002)was prepared according to schedule. A total of three comment letters were received and a Response to Comments/Final EIR has been prepared. Thus, the EIR is ready to be scheduled for hearing. However, the City Council's approval of the EIR contract included a condition that the EIR cannot be brought forward for City Council consideration until the city is reimbursed for the entire cost of the contract by outside organizations. To date, the city has received a total of$4,500.00 in donated funds towards the costs of preparing the EIR and funds in the amount of$25,448.00 remain to be collected. We ask that the City Council vote to direct staff to schedule the proposed ordinance and EIR No. 11-002 for a City Council public hearing for consideration. Further delays in the review of the proposed single-use carryout bag ordinance will only -- -------- intensify-the environmental degrad.atiar�tbis pro��-s�cLordinance seeks to solve. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to schedule the Single-Use Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance and Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-002 for consideration before the City Council at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, March 18, 2013. xc: Fred A.Wilson, City Manager - Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning & Building Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Hayden Beckman, Planning Aide Kim DeCoite, Administrative Aide HB -311- Item 9. - 215 ATTACHMENT #5 Item y. - 216 Hii .3i _ City of Huntington Beach Reusable Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report 2011-002 Huntington Beach City Council March 18, 2013 Reusable Bag Ordinance Proposed Ordinance would: • Prohibit distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial purchases within the City of Huntington Beach • Apply to three specific categories of retail establishments • Establish a $0.10 charge on issuance of recyclable paper bags HB -313- Item 9. - 217 Reusable Rag Ordinance History • August 15, 2011—City Council H-Item directs staff to prepare draft ordinance to require stores located in Huntington Beach to replace single-use shopping bags with reusable bags • October 3, 2011—City Council authorizes Professional Services Agreement for Rincon Consultants to prepare Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for proposed ordinance • February 4, 2012—City Council directs staff to schedule Reusable Bag Ordinance and EIR 2011-002 for consideration at regularly scheduled meeting on March 18, 2013 Reusable Rag Ordinance Stores Affected by proposed Ordinance: • 1)Full-line self-service retail stores with gross annual sales of$2 million,or more,that sell a line of dry goods, canned goods,or nonfood items and some perishable items; • Examples:Wal-Mart,Target,Home Depot 2)Stores of at least 10,000 square feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law(Part 1.5(commencing with Section 7200)of Division 2 of the Revenue&Taxation Code)and that has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000)of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or • Examples:Kohl's,Michael's,Hobby Lobby 2 Item 9. - 218 HB -314- Reusable Bag Ordinance Stores Affected by proposed Ordinance: Continued • Drug stores, pharmacies, supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience food stores, food marts, or other entities engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods that includes milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcohol Beverages Control • Ralphs or Albertsons grocery store,CVS or Walgreens pharmacies, 7-11 and other convenience stores Reusable Bag Ordinance City's Objectives: • Reduce 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 • Reduce environmental impacts related to single-use plastic bags • Avoiding litter and associated adverse impacts to storm water systems, aesthetics, and the marine environment(Pacific Ocean and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) HB -315- Item 9. - 219 REQUEST-EIR 2011-002 Environmental Impact Report 2011-002 • To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance • Prior to any action on the proposed Ordinance, City Council must review and act on EIR 2011-002 SCOPE OF EIR 2011-002 Final EIR No. 2011-002 provides a discussion of impacts by specific issue area through the project's initial Study • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology and Water Quality 4 Item 9. - 220 xB -316- SCOPE OF EIR 2011-002 • Three alternatives analyzed: — `No Project'Alternative:assumes the Reusable Bag Ordinance would not occur —Outright Prohibition Alternative: prohibit all retail establishments in Huntington Beach from providing single-use plastic bags, including restaurants and other retailers not covered by the proposed ordinance —Mandatory$0.25 Charge Alternative: Preserve regulations on single-use plastic bags upon three specified categories of retail establishments; increase mandatory charge for single-use paper bags from $0.10 to$0.25. 1R CONNICLUSIONS ® As proposed, Reusable Bag Ordinance would not have significant environmental impacts HB -317- Item 9. - 221 FINAL EIR • Responded in writing to all comments received (3 letters) during 45-day review period • Provided changes/corrections to Draft EIR • Provided Response to Comments to agencies that commented 10 days prior to certification of EIR REC®IVI 11/I E N®ATI U N Certify EIR 2011-002 based on the following findings: • Prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); • Adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance; and • Identifies project alternatives for City Council consideration, including a "No Project" alternative. 6 Item 9. - 222 HB -318- RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Reusable Bag Ordinance based on the following: • Initiate a community-wide shift from the use of plastic and paper carryout bags • Promote the use of reusable bags for retail customers • Reduce likelihood of plastic bag litter entering the environment • Improve aesthetics of City's beaches, parks, and other public spaces • Consistent with Council's Strategic Plan Goal by enhancing economic development QUESTIONS? - M - HB -319- Item 9. - 223 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13671 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Question Request area: City Council- Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Jeanne Whitesell Description: I urge you to pass the Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-002 (Reusable Bag Ordinance). We must stop the harm to our environment with the glut of plastic bags. Expected Close Date: 03/12/2013 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 Item 9. - 224 HB -320- Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:44 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Plastic Bag Prohibition From: Phyllis Maywhort[mailto:pmaywhort@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:39 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bag Prohibition Hello, City Council Members, Since I may not be able to attend the March 18 City Council Meeting, I would like to tell you that I strongly favor a ban on plastic bags. Long Beach already has the ban, and it is not a problem. My husband and I keep reusable bags in the trunk of the car and have not had to buy a paper bag yet. We were trained when we were in Germany,where stores do not provide plastic bags. If we wanted a bag for our items,we had to buy one. We learned fast. Why waste oil making plastic bags and why fill up landfills with plastic bags? The ban makes good sense. ?hylhs Maywhort (562)243-0787 16851 Bay View Drive Sunset Beach, CA 90742-0198 i HB -321- Item 9. - 225 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13390 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Compliment Request area: City Council -Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Sarah Olson Description: Hi Joe, I just wanted to thank you for your support of the plastic bag ban. I really appreciate your reasonable perspective on the issue that takes into account the health of the environment and the quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach. You are serving the best interests of the community well, unlike some of your short- sighted fellow councilmen. Sarah Olson 714-865-5657 Expected Close Date: 02/09/2013 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 Item 9. - 226 HB -322- Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13379 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Steve Tyler Description: I adamantly urge council members Carchio, Sullivan and Harper to reverse their horribly wrong thinking about banning plastic bags. Obviously these LDCs are being paid off by the industry. No clear headed reasonably thinking person would consider allowing these wildlife killers to continue polluting our oceans and making eyesores of our communities. Expected Close Date: 02/07/2013 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 HB -323- Item 9. - 227 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FORM MEETING DATE: "(2- -yA mi S013 SUBJECT: Ewz Pam- It,-402((Z606ft1)GT a% by 1pjN4 44E) DEPARTMENT: QLAW LttY f 591LO0t CONTACT NAME: OA'goet,� 56,eKWA"v-J PHONE: (�- N/A YES NQ ( ) ( ( ) Is the notice attached? Do the heading and closing of the notice reflect a hearing before the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency? Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) (✓}� Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size ( ( ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit, are the resident labels attached? Is Summary Report 33433 attached? (Redevelopment Agency items only) What is the minimum number of days from publication to hearing date? to What is the minimum number of times to be published? What is the specified number of days between publications? FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CITY CLERK USE ONLY Approved for public hearing Date noticed to newspaper Date published Date notices mailed NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011-002 (REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE). Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-002 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption of a proposed ordinance by the City of Huntington Beach City Council that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach and establish a ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all grocery stores and supermarkets, drug stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, food marts and Huntington Beach farmer's markets. All stores affected by the proposed ordinance would be required to provide reusable bags to customers for either 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. The Ordinance would also prohibit the distribution of compostable and biodegradable bags, as they are included in the definition of a plastic carryout bag. The Ordinance requires that the paper bags be one hundred percent (100%) recyclable overall, contain a minimum of forty percent (40%) post- consumer recycled material, and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City, among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured at a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead, cadmium, or other heavy elements in toxic amounts. Plastic bags that are a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten (10) cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Food Program. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable bags or recyclable paper carryout bags or both, to these customers, at the store's option. Customers will have the option to use their own reusable bags, or no bag at all. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Hayden Beckman NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 2011-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271., ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office or on line at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Thursday, March 14, 2013. GALEGAMCITY COUNCIL\2013\031813(EIR No 2011-002 Reusable Bag Ordlnance).docx ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ GALEGALS\CITY COUNCIL\2013\031813(EIR No 2011-002 Reusable Bag Ordlnance).docx 09 18/09 196 fuany oane alglledwop ww L9 x wuI 9Z lewaol op auanb113 0918/0915@ fuanV ql!m olgiledwoo«8/5 Z x«1 ozls iagel 1 2 3 HB CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ORANGE COUNTY ASSOC.OF REALTORS AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA PRESIDENT DAVE STEFANIDES PRESIDENT 2134 MAIN ST.STE. 100 25552 LA PAz ROAD P.O.Box 1563 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 LAGUNA HILLS,CA 92653 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 4 4 5 SUNSET BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC. SUNSET BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW PAT THIES,PRESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD—COUNTY OF ORANGE PRESIDENT PO Box 215 P.O.Box 746 PO Box 865 SUNSET BEACH,CA 90742-0215 SUNSET BEACH,CA 90742-0746 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 7 11 SCAG 10 HUNTINGTON HARBOR POA MATRIX ENVIRONMENTAL RICHARD SPICER ATTN: SHAWN GAUER,SENIOR PLANNER 818 WEST 7TH, 12TH FLOOR P.O.Box 791 6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST#900 Los ANGELES,CA 90017 SUNSET BEACH,CA 90742 Los ANGELES,CA 90045 17 19 19 KIRSTEN BERG O.C.PLNG.&DEV..SERVICES DEPT. O.C.PLANNING&DEVELOP.DEPT. 18870 TEN CIRCLE DIRECTOR MICHAEL BALSAMO HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 P.O.Box 4048 P.O.BOX 4048 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 20 21 22 CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR P.O.Box 1200 10200 SLATER AVE. P.O.Box 1768 COSTA MESA, CA 92628-1200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CA 92708 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663-8915 23 24 25 CITY OF WESTMINSTER CITY OF SEAL BEACH CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR THERESA HENRY _ 8200 WESTMINSTER BLVD. 211 EIGHTH ST. SOUTH COAST AREA OFFICE WESTMINSTER,CA 92683 SEAL BEACH,CA 90740 200 OCEANGATE, 1 OTH FLOOR LONG BEACH,CA 92802-4302 25 26 27 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,DIST. 12 LOCAL SOLID WASTE ENF.AGY. SOUTH COAST AREA OFFICE CHRISTOPHER HERRE,BRANCH CHIEF O.C.HEALTH CARE AGENCY 200 OCEANGATE, 1 OTH FLOOR 3337 MICHELSON DR.,SUITE 380 DIRECTOR LONG BEACH,CA 92802-4302 IRVINE,CA 92612-1699 P.O.Box 355 SANTA ANA,CA 92702 28 29 29 HUNTINGTON BEACH POST OFFICE FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. NEW GROWTH COORDINATOR MARC ECKER RINA LUCCHESE,EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 6771 WARNER AVE. 10055 SLATER AVENUE 10055 SLATER AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CA 92708 FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CA 92708 30 30 31 HB CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST. HB CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST. OCEAN VIEW ELEM.SCHOOL DIST. GREGG HAULK, SUPERINTENDENT JOHN ARCHIALD ATTN:CINDY PULFER,ADMIN. SERVICES 20451 CRAIMER LANE 20451 CRAIMER LANE 17200 PINEHURST LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 31 32 32 OCEAN VIEW ELEM.SCHOOL DIST. WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT WILLIAM LOOSE,SUPERINTENDENT CHRISTINE FULLERTON RICHARD TAUER,SUPERINTENDENT 17200 PINEHURST LANE 14121 CEDARWOOD AVENUE 14121 CEDARWOOD AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 WESTMINSTER,CA 92683 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 002,� label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 -� Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery°5160/8160 3AF113 09g8/09Gg®Many oanz algljedwoq ww Lg x ww gZ Iewiol ap allanbl13 0918/09Gg®fj9ny qj!m alq!jvdwoo„g/g Z x j azls laqul 5 Star Mobil 7-Eleven 80's Purple 20002 Beach Blvd Jennie Schannechia OWNER Tuan Tran OWNER Huntington Beach, CA 92648-3739 8492 Warner Ave 7711 Woodwind Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6043 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7144 99 Cents Only Stores 99 Cents Only Stores 99 Cents Only Stores 15962 Springdale St 16672 Beach Blvd Dave Gold SITE MANAGER Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1729 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4850 19050 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2552 A-1 Riflesafe AAA Auto Buyers Aardvark Mobile Screen Dave Mer EXEC DIRECTOR 17081 Leslie Ln #3 Dave Verone OWNER 7950 Ronald Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4037 10091 Merrimac Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7112 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3727 Aaron Brothers Art & Framing Acap Security Inc Accurate Sash & Door Inc Linh Do SITE MANAGER Glenn Gearhart OWNER David Ramirez PRESIDENT 7041 Yorktown Ave# 101 18700 Main St# 204a 16582 Gothard St# H Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2499 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1714 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4481 Active Network Adam's Electronics Albertsons 101 Main St# 240 Alex Cetin OWNER John Oborny DIRECTOR Huntington Beach, CA 92648-8156 7130 Edinger Ave 16600 Bolsa Chica St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3505 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3583 Albertsons Albertsons Albertsons Pharmacy 19640 Beach Blvd Dave Luciano DIRECTOR 9051 Atlanta Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2905 .7201 Yorktown Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6332 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2465 Aleeda Wetsuits Alex's Lawn Mower Shop A lkarma TV Steve Terry OWNER '16612 Beach Blvd Sam Estefonos OWNER 18241 Gothard St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4838 15602 Producer Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1224 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1310 Allen Tire Co Ameri-King America's Tire Co Matthew Calderron SITE Victor Van OWNER Joe Ortiz SITE MANAGER MANAGER 17881 Sampson Ln 15672 Springdale St 18455 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7148 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1315 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1329 American Apparel American Auto Exchange American Precision Hydraulics Joyce Lim SITE MANAGER 17281 Beach Blvd Susan Smith OWNER 207 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-0801 5601 Research Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5127 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1620 AMPM Appliance Parts Bank Archway Systems Inc Sean Farsai OWNER Stephanie Wood OWNER Mike Lazear CEO 6002 Bolsa Ave 7573 Slater Ave #A 2134 Main St# 160 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2443 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7754 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6447 �� label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 311P ` o /f3 rl � 1— kiauette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 L9/09 Lg®tiany oane alglfedwoo ww L9 x ww gZ 1ewjoj ap allanbl13 09 L9/09Lg®tiany yflm alglfedwoo ,9/g Z x«L azls lapel ° Arco Smog Pros Arthur Enterprises Atomic Aquatics San Jay Vaswani SITE MANAGER William Helzer OWNER 16742 Burke Ln 17502_Goldenwest St . 5181 Argosy Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4559 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6223 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1058 Autozone Avatar Partners Baby Gap Jeff Velarde SITE MANAGER Mario Brooke CEO Monica Adame SITE MANAGER 6800 Warner Ave 20422 Beach Blvd # 325 18681 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5304 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-8300 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1722 Barnes & Noble Beach Mobil Beach Yamaha 7881 Edinger Ave# 110 Kaiser Korkis OWNER Greg Hogan OWNER Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7639 16001 Beach Blvd 19721 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3802 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2997 BEVMO! Big Lots Big Lots Judi Martin SITE MANAGER Frank Molina SITE MANAGER Henry Vazquez SITE MANAGER 16672 Beach Blvd # K 21082 Beach Blvd 6911 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4859 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5402 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5305 Bigger Farther Faster Bounce U Boyer-Ambrose Flooring Darren Crawford OWNER Karen Kosmos MANAGER Ralph Ambrose OWNER 14520 Delta Ln # 105 5445 Oceanus Dr# 114 16632 Gemini Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2073 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1007 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4429 Bpmb Inc Budnik Wheels Inc Burlington Coat Factory Michael Mai PRESIDENT Alan Budnik PRESIDENT Julie Biddle SITE MANAGER 19621 Dearborne Cir 5342 Oceanus Dr 7777 Edinger Ave# 100 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1031 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3640 Byran Co Cal Crystal Lab Inc Carters Retail Kelly Dunagan OWNER Michele Anderson PRESIDENT Leslie Dumas MANAGER 18092 Redondo Cir 15302 Bolsa Chica St 7881 Edinger Ave#A114 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1326 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1245 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7637 Central Library Check Out Software Chevron Ron Hayden PRESIDENT 16912 Gothard St 17881 Gothard St 7111 Talbert Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5476 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6252 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1296 Chevron Choices Apparel Inc Coast Fabrication 6972 Warner Ave Michael Thomas PRESIDENT Mike Lang OWNER Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5316 5542 Research Dr 16761 Burke Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1614 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4560 Coastline Construction &Awnng Competitvie Aquatic Supply Convenience Retailers John Almquist PRESIDENT Kurt Kachigan OWNER 16971 Goldenwest St 5742 Research Dr 15661 Container Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5443 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1617 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1532 Ell� ill—oo Z label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery/55160/8160 y j 3 ` Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 L8/09 L9@ tiAAV 39AP algljedwop ww L9 x ww gZ IewJo{ap auanbl13 09L9/09L5®tiaAt1 gilnn algijedwoa„9/9 Z x,,[azis lagel Cookie Jar Collection Inc Cost Plus World Market Creative Imagination Ed Hackbarth OWNER Dan Dinwiddie SITE MANAGER Jack Behlmer OWNER 17682 Sampson Ln 7777 Edinger Ave# 136 17832 Gothard St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7739 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8689 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6217 CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy Tanara Pok SITE MANAGER Michelle Tran SITE MANAGER Richard Bolton SITE MANAGER 10011 Adams Ave 19121 Beach Blvd 5295 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4904 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2307 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4079 Dayva International Co Dcs-Fisher & Paykel Appis LTD Diane's AI Bilotti OWNER Lawrence Mawhinney PRESIDENT Michele Moy SITE MANAGER 7441 Vincent Cir 5900 Skylab Rd 118 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1246 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2061 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5126 Earth Friendly Technologies Edinger Market & Gas Equuspring LLC Akira Kodama OWNER Kambiz Esfahani OWNER Joe Kreisberg MANAGER 17011 Beach Blvd # 225 5002 Edinger Ave 5333 Industrial Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7419 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1436 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1516 Exon Mobile Express Modular Systems Finyl Vinyl 17222 Pacific Coast Hwy 7432 Prince Dr Don Barlow PRESIDENT Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4116 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4553 15201 Pipeline Ln #A Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5704 Five Point's Shell Forever 21 Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt Peter Dahabreh OWNER 155 5th St# 141 Cindy Hicks MANAGER 18502 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5116 16672 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2017 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4850 G & M Oil Co Inc Gaetano Hardwood Floors Gem Tech George Pearson CEO Richard Larson OWNER 17892 Metzler Ln 16868 A Ln 7071 Kearny Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6255 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4831 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6255 Golden Spoon GUESS Home Depot Avery Hogancamp SITE MANAGER Joseph Crook SITE MANAGER Mike Brakefield SITE MANAGER 7862 Warner Ave* D 155 5th St 19101 Magnolia St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7364 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5101 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2233 Home Depot Hunting Beach Delillo Huntington Beach 76 Kelly Harmer SITE MANAGER David De Lillo OWNER Edward Tantoco OWNER 7100 Warner Ave 18211 Beach Blvd 21471 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8404 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1308 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7324 Huntington Beach Chrysler Jeep Huntington Beach Dodge Huntington Beach Ford Rick Evans OWNER Clay James PRESIDENT Omar Ziaolhagh GENERAL MGR 16701 Beach Blvd 16555 Beach Blvd 18255 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4814 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4801 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1351 2-011 O� label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery/95160/8160 310113 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09l.2/09GgD fang pane alggdwoo ww L9 x ww gZ 1ewjof ap aganbi13 09 t•8/0919@ faany U1lM @lggdwoo„8/9 Z x„G azls lagel Huntington Beach Mazda Huntington Beach Mitsubishi Huntington Garden Ctr Chad Custer GENERAL MGR Chuck Bien GENERAL MGR Vincent Hakes OWNER 16800 Beach Blvd 16751 Beach Blvd 19121 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4807 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4814 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2553 Huntington Honda Huntington Service Ctr Huntington Surf& Sport Roger Smith OWNER Carl Marantz OWNER Aaron Pai OWNER 17555 Beach Blvd 21502 Brookhurst St 300 Pacific Coast Hwy# 104 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4797 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8019 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5107 Hyuntington Beach Dodge Jo-Ann Fabrics & Crafts Jo-Ann Fabrics & Crafts George Fields GENERAL MGR 15031 Goldenwest St 9901 Adams Ave 16555 Beach Blvd . Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2710 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4809 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4801 Jonathan's Coastal Living Justice Just For Girls Kanvas By Katin Jamie Bernal OWNER Sausta Garcia SITE MANAGER Glenn Hughes OWNER 19370 Goldenwest St 7777 Edinger Ave# 144 PO Box 223 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2113 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8690 Surfside, CA 90743-0223 Karl's Sash & Doors Kenny King Enterprises KERR Floors Inc Anton Seitz MANAGER 4952 Warner Ave #203 John Kerr OWNER 18292 Gothard St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5530 21531 Surveyor Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1225 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7066 Kohl's Department Store Kohl's Department Store L-3 GA Intl Inc Tim Weise SITE MANAGER 9811 Adams Ave Tom Hall MANAGER 7777 Edinger Ave# 140 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4807 7402 Prodan Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8669 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1207 Lamps Plus Laptops 4 Less Lenscrafters Lee Heien SITE MANAGER Mike Khalad MANAGER , Keri Dixon SITE MANAGER 7262 Edinger Ave 10034 Adams Ave 7777 Edinger Ave # 146 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3506 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4905 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8666 Lowe's Home Improvement Mackey's Hot Rods Inc Marina Auto Body - Kevin Little SITE MANAGER 7551 Burton Dr#A Cindy Osthus MANAGER 8175 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7765 17911 Georgetown Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8251 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7173 Marshalls Maxx Entertainment Digital Mc Kenna Motors Helga Moffit SITE MANAGER Ron Amborn PRESIDENT 18711 Beach Blvd 16672 Beach Blvd # F 21562 Newland St iHuntington Beach, CA 92648-2005 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4837 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7608 Meadowlark Golf Club - Men's Wearhouse . Mesa Publishing Co Mike Shank MANAGER Jacob Johnston SITE MANAGER Camille Bizot PRESIDENT 16782 Graham St 7738 Edinger Ave 15611 Product Ln # B4 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3738 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3607 !Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1345 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 .311,,f// ® Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/091g®fjany oane a1g1lvdwop ww L9 x ww gZ jvwjoj ap allanbg3 0918/0919®band qj!M algljedwoo„8/g Z x,,[azls lagel ° Michael's Carpets Michaels Mother's Market & Kitchen's Michael Hersh OWNER 7600 Edinger Ave# A Cindy Moore MANAGER 9005 Adams Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3605 19770 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5927 Mystic LAMINATING N B Oil Co Inc Nissan Huntington Beach Kelly Foster OWNER Terry Berry OWNER 17331 Beach Blvd 7451 Lorge Cir 20001 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5910 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3619 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4922 Norm Reeves Honda Superstore Notthoff Engineering LA Inc O'Reilly Auto Parts Paul Conant GENERAL MGR Terry Kaller OWNER Don Beck SITE MANAGER 19131 Beach Blvd '5416 Argosy Ave 18900 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2307 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1039 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2092 Ocean Breeze Trailer PAR Office Depot Old Navy 6391 Myrtle Dr 7742 Edinger Ave 18543 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3317 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3607 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Old World Restaurant Optimum Bioenergy Corp Orchard Supply Hardware Dan Roth MANAGER Louis Li OWNER '19330 Goldenwest St 7561 Center Ave# 38 15592 Producer Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2113 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3038 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1308 Osmena Chrysler Plymouth Pacific Component Xchahge Pacific Ready Mix Inc 19855 Coventry Ln 1120 Pacific Coast Hwy Norman Bergdahl PRESIDENT Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4238 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4817 20892 Balgair Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6424 Party City Paul Pfaff Racing Pep Boys. 16100 Beach Blvd Paul Pfaff OWNER Ed Freman SITE MANAGER Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3805 5362 System Dr 19122 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1529 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2554 PETCO PETCO PETSMART .Lisa Taylor SITE MANAGER Ryan Vanhoven SITE MANAGER Michael Berardini SITE MANAGER 5961 Warner Ave 8909 Adams Ave 7600 Edinger Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4659 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3330 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3605 Pier 1 Imports Pinecraft Custom Shutters Plant Material Brokers Jeloni Williams SITE MANAGER Frank Gerardo OWNER John Lamrock OWNER 18501 Main St 6751 Melbourne Dr 21251 Bushard St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2649 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7210 Plasma Ruggedized Solutions Power Plan Corp Power Turbine Inc Bob Lara MANAGER Pramod Deshpande CEO 16400 Pacific Coast Hwy# 217 5452 Business Dr 2130 Main St# 245 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1822 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6470 W11-042- label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/0915®ti8ny oane algljedwoo LULU L9 x ww gZ jewjof ap apanbl13 0918/0915®Aaany qj!m algljedwoo„g/g Z x j azls lagel . . = Prestige Installations Inc Prestige Installations Inc Prizes Albert Munes MANAGER Albert Nunes OWNER Tom Portale OWNER 16562 Gothard St 9381 Nantucket Dr 5242 Argosy Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8560 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3531 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1074 Pro Vue Development Quiksilver Wetsuits Inc Rainbow Disposal Co Inc Jim Rea PRESIDENT Justin Ruttkay MANAGER Bruce Shuman PRESIDENT 18685 Main St#A 15202 Graham St PO Box 1026 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1719 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1109 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1026 Ralphs Ralphs RE[ Brett Hansen GENERAL MGR Joey Deameila GENERAL MGR 7777 Edinger Ave# 138 19081 Goldenwest St 5241 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8689 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2151 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4060 Reliable Wholesale Lumber Inc Resource Building Materials Revelation Records Jerry Higman CEO Mike Davis MANAGER Jordan Cooper OWNER PO Box 191 7502 Warner Ave PO Box 5232 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-0191 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5707 Huntington Beach, CA 92615-5232 Rite Aid Ross Dress For Less Scientific Refrigeration 5881 Warner Ave Maria Delgado SITE MANAGER Dwayne Robinson OWNER Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4657 7201 Warner Ave 16511 Burke Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5431 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4537 Screenmobile Seacliff Liquor Silver Star Pet 15611 Product Ln Chuck Robison OWNER Kurt Anson OWNER Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1345 402 17th St 15662 Graham St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1611 Smart & Final Smart & Final Southern Hemisphere Wine Rich Brenton GENERAL MGR 9062 Adams Ave John Gorman OWNER 6882 Edinger Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3402 5973 Engineer Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3402 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1129 Sport Chalet Sprint Standards Of Excellence Lisa Mc Clure SITE MANAGER 7621 Edinger Ave# 106 Scott Eremick MANAGER 16242 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8684 16001 Gothard St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3702 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3608 Staples Staples Stater Bros Markets 7131 Yorktown Ave Bon Hilderbrandt SITE MANAGER David Salacer GENERAL MGR Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2464 7881 Edinger Ave# 130 10114 Adams Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7639 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4907 Stater Bros Markets Stein Mart Super Brace George Mendez GENERAL MGR 19041 Beach Blvd 15855 Chemical Ln 7101 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2305 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1510 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5429 ZO//—ODL label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ® Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 L8/09Lg®Many o9Ae aigljedwop ww L9 x ww gZ 1ewiof op 9119nbl13 09 L8/09Lg@ Many 1.l}Inn algljedwoo„8/g Z x„L azls lagel Surf City Nissan T-Mobile T-Mobile Larry Smith GENERAL MGR 7821 Edinger Ave# 142 Ryan Sanders MANAGER 17331 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7636 8112 Talbert Ave # 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5910 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1519 .Target Teacher Created Materials Terasci Industries Inc 9882 Adams Ave Rachelle Cracchiolo OWNER Mark Donnelly OWNER Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4808 5301 Oceanus Dr 5405 Production Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1030 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1524 Tessworks Third Degree Sportswear Thomasville Home Furnishings Kimberlee Schaffner OWNER Steve Laszlo OWNER John Lynch SITE MANAGER PO Box 1894 15422 Electronic Ln 7227 Edinger Ave # B Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1894 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1334 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3501 Tilly's Toyota Of Huntington Beach Toys R Us Rob Pepin SITE MANAGER Bob Miller GENERAL MGR 7212 Edinger Ave # B 18545 Main St 18881 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3578 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2007 Trader Joe's Trading Post Fan Co Tru West Inc 18681 Main St# 101 Gil Schauer OWNER Lee Westwell PRESIDENT Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1722 6952 Warner Ave 5592 Engineer Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5316 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1122 TSW Alloy Wheels TWACOMM.COM Tyr Sport Inc 14462 Astronautics Ln # 101 Ed Paige CEO PO Box 1930 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2077 101 Main St# 355 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1930 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-8150 U-Haul Moving & Storage United Flight Accessories Urethane Products Corp Mike Stiffler SITE MANAGER Ray Godwin OWNER Elizabeth Thermos OWNER 19261 Beach Blvd 5602 Research Dr 17842 Sampson Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2525 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1615 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7147 Vanguard Electronics Co Vans Vicki Marsha Uniforms Kenneth Finley OWNER Tirsha Navarra SITE MANAGER Diane Cologne OWNER 7412 Prince Dr 18589 Main St 5292 Production Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4553 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1589 Victory Professional Products Vons Vons Marc Spitaleri PRESIDENT '5922 Edinger Ave Tammy Madina GENERAL MGR 18281 Enterprise Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1706 8891 Atlanta Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1216 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7119 Vu-Revisions Best Of The Best Walgreens Walgreens 4136 Shorebreak Dr Mike Hoodbhoy SITE MANAGER 19501 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,CA 92649-2183 17522 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2902 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6802 eE�� 00 2-- label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 3/1t/1—j Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/0919®tiany cane alglledwoo ww L9 x ww gZ jumol ap apanbl13 0918/09190,tiany qj!m algljedwoo,,8/9 Z x„G azls lagei Walmart West Marine Wet Seal Jon Groth SITE MANAGER Cathy Screen SITE MANAGER 18587 Main St 8230 Talbert Ave 16390 Pacific Coast Hwy## 100 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1709 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1545 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1800 Whole Foods Market Yorath Yachts Zadro Products Pat Cox MANAGER Thomas Yorath Sr OWNER Vlatko Zadro OWNER 7881 Edinger Ave# 150 16400 Pacific Coast Hwy# 107 5332 System Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7639 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1852 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1529 ZEE Medical Inc Zview Inc Carl R Goode PRESIDENT Jiabin Zeng OWNER_ 16631 Burke Ln 15640 Graham St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4535 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1611 ZD//— 0L,2 Z label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 65160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 L8/09 Lg@ tianV oane alglletlwoo ww L9 x ww gZ lewjol ap 94anbl13 09L8/09Lg@ tianV y1!M alggEdwoo„8/g Z x„L azls lagel 33 33 40 HB UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT HB UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT HEARTHS IDE HOMES STEPHEN RITTER GREG PLUTKO,SUPERINTENDENT 5832 BOLSA AVENUE 5832 BOLSA AVENUE 6 EXECUTIVE CIRCLE, SUITE 250 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 IRVINE,CA 92614 41 41 49 BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST COASTKEEPERS 5200 WARNER AVENUE,STE. 108 EVAN HENRY,PRESIDENT GARY BROWN HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 1812 PORT TIFFIN PLACE 3151 AIRWAY AVE. SUITE F-110 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 COSTA MESA, CA 92663 STEPHEN L JOSEPH,COUNSEL BETSY BROWN PAT GOODMAN SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION 350 BAY STREET, SUITE 100-328 18271 THOMAS CIRCLE 18531 BENTLEY LANE SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94133 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 MAUREEN MCLAUGHLIN SANDY SCHNELLER JEANNE WHITESELL 4852 TIARA DRIVE#201 16865 PEMBROOK LANE 17922 SHOREHAM LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 DAVE SINGLETON COLIN KELLET SUE GORDON,CHAIR NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL 915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 364 3151 AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE F-110 BOARD P.O. 190 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 COSTA MESA,CA 92626 BOX HUNTINGTOONN BEACH, CA 92648 2Z)// label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 £,,, ..�` '1j `V�.��a7 AF,�1'Ej�1a. P f tE'" '"��� ��� !"J� 2 �--�# 5 � �► I'. € kQ� f'TSC 'ir 4 ` - Prtrtted'by OS02:Patrfcte GatTtitTo Feb 28,2013,212 pm :. Salesperson: ' Phone Ad&3%10/44 31, 'Y*•- ,"iw .t^ a .. 1. �__� i t 4 __ i .c,9 ':-. ? 11ti���i��niSE '*� ��,�. tt *"* ' 'r,�ACCQUf�1#1f1t61'i1Tat10n,�. 4 " (714) s-5227trt{cat ' Os-o -i s_._ S f x 91.a�o ��- 5 g ldam City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) Stopt�at�; �3-07-13 TI{Er�rs�t�a�9.00 TCN Inch � A eft' PO Box 784 n r#rot s;; f �f Yv+!cud t : Huntington Beac,CA 92648 fat�«> &Legal Huntington Beach J#d tyge Multi-Column,Liner a " i - TajkBn bye 0602 Patncla Garnirto ; 3 , e _ -, sCU00070479 ? ._ k �� � Class., 13000-Legal Notices ti Gr ;price' $144:00 , Sr;( TCN H84 rP�eitpriCa. $144 00 I{ ; CHean4. CItyYOf Huntington Beach-Clerks O �t Placditly:'' Patty Esparza Ai1Tt'Dlfe S 144:00s {714)374-1657 Note- Arrk+iint Due'•is sl+b)ect Ito 3 Ad Copy: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BUM THE pill COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTUi6TON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 18,2013,at 6:00 p.m.in the City Council Chambers, 20GO Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ TANVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011-002 (REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE). Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: Environmental impact Report No.2011.002 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption of a proposed ordinance by the City of Huntington Beach City Council that would prohibit the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial point of sale purchases within the City of Huntington Beach and establish a ten(10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all grocery stores and supermarkets, drug stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, food marts and Huntington Beach farmers markets. All stores affected by the proposed ordinance would be required to provide reusable bags to customers for either 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. The Ordinance would also prohibit the distribution of compostable and biodegradable bags, as they are included in the definition of a plastic carryout bag. The Ordinance requires that the paper bags be one hundred percent(100%)recyclable overall, contain a minimum of forty percent (40%) post- consumer recycled material, and be accepted for recycling in curbside programs within the City, among other criteria. The Ordinance further requires that reusable bags be specifically designed and manufactured at a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, does not contain lead,cadmium,or other heavy elements in toxic amounts.Plastic bags that are a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be reusable bags per the definition in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten (10) cent charge those customers who are participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Food Program. All applicable stores must provide at the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable bags or recyclable paper carryout bags or both,to these customers,at the store's option. Customers will have the option to use their own reusable bags, or no bag at all. Location: Citywide Project Planner- Hayden Beckman NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 2011-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and ad proof pg.1 -- CLI�SSIIF1ED *} 1�E7VERT,IS-ING,- tr Printed by:0602 Patricia Gamino Feb 28,2013,2:12 pm t l�B Mtge s 8aiespersm: lTo�Atitgeil¢ierr` Phone: Ad�35410144 is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department, or by telephoning(724)536-5271. ON ilL& A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department,20M Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested patties at the City Clerkes Office or on tine at - - http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov' Thursday, March 14,2013. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Councils action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk loan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 714-536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachea.gov/HBPublicComments/ ad proof pg.2 --- PROOF OF __._-----------_____.________- -- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ITY UN OF HEPUBLICATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS-,HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, M2rch '18, 2013, at 6:00. p.m" in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on.the following planning and zoning item: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 1-002 (REUSABLE L IMPACT REPORT NO pli�'A®9 2011-002 (REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE). Appli- cant:City of Huntington Beach Request: Environ SS. mental Impact Report-No. 2011-002 analyzes the .potential ,environmental impacts associated with COUNTY OF ORANGE � the adoption a proposed ordinance the City of Huntingtonn Beach City Council that would 'prohibit the distribution of plastic carryout bags in commercial point ot'sale purchases within the !City-of Huntington,Beach,and"establish a-ten (10).. cent charge on the issuance of recyclable.paper I am a citizen of the United States and a ;carryout bags at all grocery stores and supermar- kets,drug stores,pharmacies,convenience stores, resident of the County of Los Angeles; I food marts and Huntington Beach farmer ',s m kets.All stores affected by.the proposed ordinance am over the age of eighteen years, and ;would.be required to provide reusable bags to customers for either sale or at no charge, and not a party to or interested in the notice each store would be strongly, encouraged to promote the use of reusable bags through,staff published. I am a principal clerk of the education and customer outreach. The Ordinance would also prohibit the distribution HUNTINGTON BEACH of compostable and biodegradable bags, as they ;are included in the definition'of a plastic carryout INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a "bag. The Ordinance requires that the paper bags !be one hundred percent(100%)recyclable overall, newspaper o general circulation on contain a minimum of forty, percent (40%) post-consumer recycled material;and be accepted September 29, 1961, case A6214, and for recycling in curbside programs within the City, among other criteria. The Ordinance further June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the +requires that reusable bags be specifically de- signed and manufactured at a minimum lifetime City of Huntington Beach, County of of 125 uses, be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected, Orange, and the State of California. does not contain lead;cadmium, or other heavy elements in toxic amounts. Plastic bags that are Attached to this Affidavit is 'a true and a minimum of 2.25 mils thick are considered to be' reusable bags per the 'definition in the complete copy as was printed and ordinance. The Ordinance would exempt from the ten (10) cent charge those customers who are published on the following date(s): participating in either the California Special Supplemental Food Program for the: Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Food ,, ,I March All applicable stores must provide at `Thursday, March 7, 2013 the point of sale, free of charge, either reusable 'bags or recyclable paper carryout bags or both; to these customers, at the store's option. Cus- !tomers will have the option to use their own reusable-bags,or no bag'at all.Location:Citywide Project Planner:Hayden Beckman certify (or declare) under penalty NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR Nod 2011-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning of perjury that the foregoing is true and-Buildingavail Department,inspection Main Street, and, ;is available for public inspection and comment by !contacting the Planning and Building Department, and correct. or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of,the proposed request Js on :file in the Planning and Building Department,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection*by the public. A copy of the staff ireport will be availablelto interested parties at the City.Clerk s Office or on line at http://ww Executed on March 14, 2013 huntingtonbeachca.gov Thursday,March 14,2013. ,ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend at Los Angeles r California said hearing and express opinions or 'submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council s acti in court, you may be limited to raising only those ,issues you or someone,else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions' please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Signature Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 714-536-5227 1 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/ HBPublicComments/ 0�� CITY OF HUNTIN TON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL OAR® PO Box 190 • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 u MAR 14 2013 • Letter to City Council: Huntington Beach CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Reusable Bag Policy and Ordinance This letter is offered in support of the Reusable Bag Ordinance under discussion at the Huntington Beach City Council Meeting on March 18th, 2013. The following analysis is divided into four components for review and consideration, including: (a) Environmental and Economic Impacts of Single-Use Plastic Bags; (b)The Ordinance Promoting Reusable Bags; (c)Concerns Regarding Compostable Bags; and (d) Public Health Concerns. The analysis concludes with the recommendations from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board. a) Environmental/Economic Impacts of Single-Use Plastic Bags Plastic is the fastest-growing component of the wastestream and plastic pollution, such as single-use bags are among the most commonly found item collected at beach and coastal cleanups.City of Huntington Beach residents and business owners take pride in their beaches. They are also acutely aware of the economic benefits that clean beaches and a healthy ocean provide in their communities. The Master Environmental Assessment (MEA)', funded by Green Cities California, targeted single-use, or disposable, grocery shopping bags (i.e., bags used at checkout in grocery stores). The MEA indicated that reusable bags, on a per use basis, have substantially lower environmental impacts than single use bags. The study finds that with a minimum of just three uses, reusable bags can result in less atmospheric acidification, ground level ozone formation, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions. Some primary findings include: ® Single Use Bags - 20 billion single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic grocery bags are used annually in California; most end up in landfills or as litter. Of the four types of bags considered, plastic bags had the greatest impact on litter. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Page i of 7 Meeft We: 3__-J - Apnde Item No,. • Reusable Bags- Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results in particularly large environmental benefits. • Effects of Policy options on Single-Use Bags: In other regions of the world, fees and bans on bags have resulted in dramatic drops in consumption. For instance, the Irish plastic bag tax immediately resulted in a greater than go%reduction in use. Due to California law AB2449, no fee program on plastic bags can be introduced. However, bans on single-use plastic bags, as well as fees on other single-use bags, may be implemented to minimize use. An "icon of the convenience culture"", the plastic bag—produced on a worldwide scale in the trillions—is the most ubiquitous consumer product in the world. Unfortunately, the immediate convenience of plastic bags comes with long-term economic and environmental costs for all Californians. Every year, Americans throw away some loo billion plastic bags after using them approximately 17 minutes to carry products from the store to their home. That is equivalent to dumping nearly 12 million barrels of oil. In fact, Californians use an estimated 12 billion plastic bags a year. According to CalRecycle, the State's primary recycling agency, only 3%of the bags distributed are being recycled. Over 50 city and county jurisdictions in California have instituted plastic bag bans (i.e., reusable bag policies) to protect California's waterways and marine resources such as beaches, streams and rivers while safeguarding local marine life and ultimately protecting human health. Plastic breaks down into smaller pieces that absorb toxic chemicals, are ingested by marine life, and enter the food chain that we as consumers depend upon. Laguna Beach launched its program in January 2013. This makes it the first Orange County city to ban plastic bags; while Dana Point expects that their ban to go into effect in April 2013. Neighboring Los Angeles County cities such as Long Beach, Manhattan Beach and Los Angeles have already implemented plastic bags bans, and as a result have witnessed a reduction in bag costs to retailers. Litter collection, street sweeping and storm water protection mandates of the State continue to increase the costs to the City of Huntington Beach.The costs for these services curtail the City's ability to provide other City services to local residents. Coupled with the cost of ongoing coastal cleanups sponsored by local citizens and environmental groups dealing with pollution and plastic bags in particular is having a definite economic impact on the Huntington Beach community. In Washington D.C. a bag fee was placed on plastic bags and the five cent fee shifted consumers from an estimated 270 million bags per year to 55 million bags per year. The businesses that reported, estimated a range of bag use down by 5o%-8o%. With the pass-through costs borne by the individual shopper, this business-friendly ordinance allows businesses to reduce overhead costs while reducing the impact of plastic bags in the environment. Page 2 of 7 b) The Ordinance Promoting Reusable Bags We live in a society where the decisions consumers make are based upon cost. By instituting an ordinance that discourages the use of plastic disposable bags, and assigns a pass-through cost for paper bags, the City is ultimately encouraging the community to increase the use of environmentally-friendly reusable bags when shopping. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the key to ending ocean pollution depends directly on the public's awareness of its causes, sources and impacts. The City of Huntington Beach may now join the ever-increasing list of city and county jurisdictions in California which have taken the opportunity to take action directly addressing this important issue. The reusable bag ordinance is a vital opportunity to deliver the only salient answer to the spiraling problem of plastic bag pollution, and encourage and motivate citizens that have not already done so to use reusable bags. The ordinance alone, however, is only one-half of the solution for decision makers and residents in Huntington Beach. The second is the introduction of a community education campaign focused on "Bring Your Own Bag." Fortunately, this outreach campaign is already supported by the Surfrider Foundation, Rainbow Environmental Services and the Environmental Board, and is similar to successful campaigns in cities and counties throughout California. Together, the ordinance and outreach are a comprehensive solution to the plastic litter in our oceans, beaches and waterways. c) Concerns Regarding Compostable/Biodegradable Bags There are many plastic bags on the market claiming to be "biodegradable" or environmentally preferable due to a variety of attributes.According to the Washington D.C. based research organization, The Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), these claims "often cannot be verified or are misleading". Companies eager to sell their products are relying on the fact that most consumers are unaware of the difference between certifiable compostable and biodegradable products. The American Society of Testing and Materials(ASTM)define `biodegradability' as: "capable of undergoing decomposition into carbon dioxide, methane, water, inorganic compounds, or biomass in which the predominant mechanism is the enzymatic action of microorganisms, that can be measured by standardized tests in a specified period of time, reflecting available disposal conditions." According to Ramani Narayan, a professor of chemical and biochemical engineering at Michigan State University, "This word 'biodegradable' has become very attractive to people trying to make a quick buck on it," explains Narayan, who helped develop biodegradable corn-based plastic. Some companies, he says, are making conventional plastic that degrades quickly and then throwing around claims about biodegradability that are unproven or just too good to be true. Moreover, there are new generations of biodegradables emerging that have inconsistent outcomes when faced with ASTM testing requirements. Oxo-degradable plastics, for instance, does not meet any Page 3 of 7 standards when it comes to biodegradability and should not be considered biodegradable or compostable. While many bioplastics are certifiable as compostable in commercial compost facilities, it should not be assumed that they can be composted at home, and more specifically that they would be capable of biodegrading in various marine environments. Further, a number of petrochemical-based polymers have been certified as both biodegradable and compostable, which further complicates the issue for consumers. In addition, compost operators do not have the ability to properly differentiate a fossil-based polymer from a biobased polymer. Since biobased bags are not visually distinguishable from the traditional fossil-based plastic bag this is problematic once they enter the refuse or recycling stream.As a result, many compost operators do not want to introduce biobased or fossil-based bags into their operational feedstock because plastic bags damage equipment, increase downtime, and impact the bottom-line. The ASTM introduced definitions determines biodegradability in various disposal environments. Those bioplastics that meet ASTM D6400, for instance, can be certified as biodegradable and compostable in commercial composting facilities. With International standards and certifications on the rise, these certifications will ensure that a product can be composted in an industrial or home composting site. In addition, manufacturers have acknowledged that biobased content is currently relatively low in bags. Bags are known to lose strength as the biobased content increases. As the industry grows and more research goes into creating biobased resins and additives, improvements in both performance and environmental attributes will certainly be made. But at the current time, there are a number of concerns as regards bio-based plastics. For example, in North America, many of the biomass crops currently in production have been genetically modified (GM) primarily to increase resistance to herbicides or insects. In the United States, 85% of all field corn planted, and gi% of the soybeans planted in 2009 were genetically modified. This profusion of GM crops makes it difficult to directly source non-GM crops for industrial production despite concern among consumers about the environmental and health impacts of GM crops. Since the primary purpose of using compostable bags is to divert organic materials, such as food scraps and yard trimmings for composting; it is essential to ensure the safe and effective compostability of bags. According to the research, existing tests and standards should be third-party-certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) in the United States. Certification requirements and compostability standards will ensure the product will break down in industrial facilities. It should also be remembered that the word "biodegradable" does not equate to compostable. Compostable means that the product will decompose in commercial compost facilities within a time frame of 18o days. The negative impact of bioplastics on our aquatic ecosystem is also of increasing concern. For those beach communities that rely on tourist revenue, the increase in biobased polymers in addition to fossil-based polymers that enter our waterways and ocean is increasingly detrimental. Page 4 of 7 In California, bags claiming compostability must now be labeled with a third party certification logo indicating the bags meet ASTM D6400, and one of the following: bag is a uniform green color with the word "compostable" in 1-inch high letters on one side of the bag, or labeled "compostable" on both sides of the bag in at least 1-inch high green letters or in a contrasting color on a 1-inch high green band. It has been further recommended by CalRecycle, that no traditional recycling logo compete with this labeling. Currently consumers and purchasers are under the impression that all of the compostable plastics, corn and potato based plastics,available on the market are compostable by industrial standards; when in fact, some products do not make it past the material recovery facility or transfer station that sorts items going to the compost facility. And though some biodegradable plastics can be recvcled, no curbside recycling program will take them at this time. In addition, the problem of adequate compost facility infrastructure continues to dominate efforts undertaken by CalRecycle throughout the State. Much of this resistance is due to the "Not In My Backyard" attitude that exists throughout the State and especially in Southern California. According to CalRecycle, the State recycling agency that is responsible for jurisdictional compliance, landfill oversight, and other materials management programs; "degradable plastics could also contaminate the existing plastic recycling stream if they are not properly collected and composted, thus reducing plastic recycling opportunities. Further, while compostable bags meeting ASTM standards will degrade in a compost environment, most will not break down if released as litter into the land or marine environments. Thus, it is important to understand that biodegradable or compostable plastics are not a panacea for waste or litter reduction. It is recommended that additional research be performed to a) better understand degradable plastics in land and marine environments and the effect that degradation residues may have on wildlife, plants, and marine life; b) to assess the environmental risks of biodegradable plastics in composting environments; c) assess the life cycle costs incurred during the manufacturing, collection, and reprocessing of compostable bags compared to the costs incurred managing conventional plastics through processing, recycling, and disposal because local governments need this information to make informed decisions on uses for compostable bags; d) evaluate degradable plastics including oxodegradable in commercial compost operations that utilize aerobic in-vessel composting; e) further investigate degradability in marine environments and life cycle assessments of the degradable plastics; and f) further evaluate the effects of contamination of the degradable plastics on recycled plastics. d) Public Health Concerns In an effort to counteract the increase in plastic bag ordinances and the promotion of reusable bags throughout California, the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that advocates on behalf of plastic- bag manufacturers funded a 2012 study that attempted to link reusable bags to foodborne illnesses. Page 5 of 7 This study developed by law professors Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright took state and federal data on emergency room admissions and food-borne-illness deaths indicating a correlation that the San Francisco bag ban "led to an increase in infections immediately upon implementation." The study estimated a 46% increase in emergency room visits and food-related deaths in San Francisco as a specific result of the City's plastic bag ban. The Environmental Board, comprised of waste industry experts, health and environmental professionals reviewed the industry-promoted research noting that the paper was not a scientific study, but an economic one. Furthermore, the associations drawn by the authors are purely anecdotal and non-methodological. Simply put, the correlation cited does not equate to causation; especially given that the paper assumes the only factor for the variance in hospital admissions, illnesses and/or deaths was exclusively due to the plastic bag ban. It is not possible to directly correlate deaths caused by food borne illnesses and attribute them solely to reusable bag use given the scope of this economic analysis. Jennie R. Romer, Atlantic region director of the Clean Seas Coalition and founder of www.plasticbaglaws..org indicated that "the time period the study covers is not relevant because the ban was only in effect for less than half of the study period. The study finds that increased deaths related to E. coli infections are due to San Francisco's bag ban simply by comparing Emergency Room visits from 3rd quarter zoo? to 4th quarter 2007. However, the zoo7 ban didn't go into effect until November 2o1h of that year(i.e., at only 50 supermarkets), so the time period is not meaningful. Second, and more importantly, no significant increase in reusable bag use in San Francisco was recorded during that time period — so this data would not be relevant in showing that reusable bags had anything to do with the increase.""' San Francisco health officer Tomas Arag6n reviewed the 2012 study and indicated that it was a complicated topic and that it was "a little surprising that he (i.e., the author) would put this out there without a peer review". If the professors had consulted with an epidemiologist, they would have understood how the City's unique demographics contribute to specific intestinal issues. In short, the San Francisco doctor concluded that the study raised more questions than it answered. Dave Heylen of the California Grocers Association ripped the study for not understanding something really basic about how the San Francisco bag ban worked in the first phase. "People weren't using reusable bags,they were using paper bags," Heylen said. Grocers have consistently supported proposals for a statewide ban on plastic bags-which would require supermarkets to charge for single-use bags because they provide what the sponsor of Sacramento's latest effort, Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, calls "uniformity of experience" for shoppers and store owners. In sum, the report is neither conclusive nor scientific in nature. It should be remembered that the source of the funding, not unlike other such documents, was from the American Chemistry Council and any stated analysis should take this fact into consideration when reviewing the findings. Page 6 of 7 Environmental Board Recommendation The City of Huntington Beach has the opportunity to encourage and educate its citizens in matters that protect local beaches, marine environments, habitat and nearby waterways and preserves. This is especially true when the economics of addressing plastic pollution results in an increase in the City's overall operational costs. The Environmental Board (EB) does acknowledge that proper sanitation such as hand-washing and laundering should always be followed in order to protect public health and safety. Reusable bags, just like any other consumer product, should be washed when dirty. As people become more accustomed to using reusable bags this idea will become more commonplace. The EB has indicated that any education campaign targeting reusable bags will promote the fact that reusable bags should be cleaned disinfected, and/or machine washed. Therefore, the Environmental Board recommends that the city of Huntington Beach ban plastic bags due to the following concerns: • Plastic is not biodegradable and remains in the environment. • It is produced from non-renewable resources. • Plastic bags break down into smaller pieces that absorb toxic chemicals, are ingested by marine life, and enter the food chain that we depend on. • They are not likely to be recycled — less than 3% of the ig billion plastic bags used annually in California are recycled. • They are a significant and visible component of litter. • They pollute our beaches and local waterways. • About ioo billion petroleum-based plastic checkout bags are used each year in the U.S., requiring an estimated 12 million barrels of oil annually • Plastic bags litter our streets, sidewalks, beaches, parks, and overall environment; they are a visual and unnecessary environmental blight. • They increase the City's cost in responding to storm water pollution. • They are a hazard to wildlife and impact nature preserves. Reusable bags are an easy, attainable solution to the issue of plastic bag pollution and the cost on the City of Huntington Beach and its citizens. The Environmental Board is available to discuss any of the aforementioned concerns. 'h_ttp-1/greencitiescalifQrnia.org/as�i tsipagesLsi_n_gle-use_bags_MEA=Ex-Summa_ry.pdf "http://www.salon.com/2007/o8/lo/plastic_bags/ http://plastic.baglaws.org/recent-study__relating-e-coli-infections=to-plastic-bag-bans is-misguided/ Page 7 of 7 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13717 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Chris Wilson Description: All across the southland cities are enacting these ordinances without detailed thought on the matter. While banning plastic might be a good idea, there is NOTHING GOOD about the little item tacked on to these ordinances that compels a mandatory 10 cent fee on paper bags. It should be every business' right to decide what to do regarding paper bags. Recycled paper does NOT harm the environment. This policy constantly causes checkout employees stress. Do you want to buy a bag? Sure. How many bags? One I guess? Meanwhile the employee is trying to figure out how to cram too many groceries into one bag because they don't want to enact another 10 cent fee. Crazy as this sounds that is what happens in Long Beach. Ban plastic? Sure. Fees for paper?NO!! Expected Close Date: 03/16/2013 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION M"OtV Date: �LD 13 ftm , Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13725 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Description: Please ban plastic bags. I am a 44 yr resident of H. B. and I am always picking up plastic bags I find laying on the ground before they can enter the storm drains and flow out into the ocean. I pick up more Walmart bags around Beach Blvd and Atlanta then I have Big Lots ones. It really upsets me when I find them on the sand and boardwalk down at the beach. PLEASE BAN PLASTIC BAGS! Thank you. Sincerely Martha Flynn Expected Close Date: 03/16/2013 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agende Item No. 9 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:40 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13739 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Problem Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: anne burke Description: plastic bag ban where they are unhealthy and carry bacteria which could cause disease 2 others Expected Close Date: 03/19/2013 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dater Agenda item No._ 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:19 PM To: Agenda Alerts; Connie Boardman; Dave Sullivan; Jill Hardy; Jim Katapodis; Joe Shaw; Matthew Harper Subject: FW: Ban the Plastic Bag meeting tonight. Come join us! From: HB/SB Surfrider Foundation [mailto:hsb@hsbsurfrider.org] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:31 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Ban the Plastic Bag meeting tonight. Come join us! Having trouble viewing this email? Click here • ® - ow =10rafflan MAM• - • - • w } r v -- Qui& Links REMENDER 3/18/13 Volunteer Today Bag •s ••. meeting, - ,Monday, PM 2013 Beach Cleanups Rise Above Plastics Hold on to your Butt Ocean Friendly Gardens Cool Videos Donate/Become a Member Events Calendar www.surfrider.orci SUPPLEMENTAL Bag the Ban - Huntington Beach COMMUNICATION �� t Memhers Residents and Friends Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:26 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 13737 From: Surf City Pipeline [mailto:noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:13 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request #: 13737 Request# 13737 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Comment Request area: Contact an Executive Citizen name: Susan Gross Description: Please do not ban the plastic ("t-shirt") bags currently available with grocery purchase in stores. For many purposes, this bag is the best tool for the job. If some of the bags end up in the ocean, the problem is littering, not the bags themselves. BUT--if you absolutely must ban the bags, AT LEAST please include an exception for biodegradable (usually plant-based) bags, and ban only the petroleum-based kind. Such a compromise might satisfy HB voters on both sides of this controversial issue. Expected Close Date: 03/27/2013 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION M"*V Date�___�� Aw4a Itm No. March 18, 2013 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor,Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Carryout Bag Draft Ordinance Dear Mayor Boardman: On behalf of the California Grocers Association(CGA), I urge you to move forward with the draft ordinance modeled after Los Angeles County that bans plastic bags,while placing a ten cent charge on paper bags. As you are aware, CGA has worked with dozens of jurisdictions throughout California on a compromise solution that protects the environment and protects retailers—a ban on plastic, charge for paper model. The California Grocers Association is a non-profit, statewide trade association representing the retail food industry since 1898. CGA represents approximately 500 retail member companies, many of which do business in Huntington Beach. Collectively our members operate more than 6,000 retail food stores in California. Those outlets represent the breadth of diversity of California's retail food industry and include traditional supermarkets, convenience stores, wholesale merchandisers, and independent supermarkets. CGA represents many of the grocery companies operating in the City of Huntington Beach. Dozens of jurisdictions across California have regulated or are in the process of regulating single-use carryout bags. Those successful efforts generally involve a ban on single-use plastic bags and a charge on specified single-use paper bags. This approach taken in other jurisdictions is one that has included robust stakeholder participation and in the end embodies broad consensus on the issue. It is important to note that such a model has become the standard in California. Following what has proven to be an effective and workable approach elsewhere helps increase consistency for businesses with store locations in multiple jurisdictions and for the Huntington Beach region's very mobile consumers. Experience with the Los Angeles County carryout bag ordinance, which bans single-use plastic bags and allows recyclable paper bags for a charge, has shown a dramatic shift in consumer behavior away from single-use carryout bags toward reusable bag use. Industry information is showing an almost immediate flip in consumer behavior with over 70%of consumers either bringing their own bag or choosing no bag at all in the first few weeks of implementation. Over a SUPPL.IEMENTAL. COMMUNICATION California Grocers Association 11020 N.Lake Street I Burbank,CA 9L5O2 1 P:_818-841-86401 F:916-448-2793 Agenda Item No.�® Ila o....... ..... .... period of a few months the amount of consumers choosing not to use a single-use bag has climbed to over 80%. Stores that have seen this policy enacted for even longer periods of time have seen close to 94% of customers bring in reusable bags. This type of regulation is environmentally effective and protects retailers, by allowing them to recoup the costs of providing a much more expensive bag to the customer. Allowing a small charge for paper bags also protects consumers by providing a low-cost option for unplanned purchases. If a customer comes to a store bringing three reusable bags, but buys four bags of groceries,they have an option of purchasing a paper bag for a ten cent charge, as opposed to spending a$1.00 on another reusable bag. Grocery stores operate on less than 1% profit margins so every penny counts. Again, we appreciate your attention to detail and urge you to move forward. We look forward to working with you throughout this process. Thank You, Sarah Paulson Sheehy Director, Local Government Relations cc: Members, Huntington Beach City Council Fred Wilson, City Manager Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk California Grocers Association 11020 N.Lake Street Burbank,CA 91502 1 P:818-841-8640 1 F:916-448-2793 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:23 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: RE---Plastic bags -----Original Message----- From: phillip wilder [mailto:wooddude4l @aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:21 PM To: Hardy, Jill Cc: Fikes, Cathy Subject: RE ---Plastic bags hi Miss Hardy We have been long time supporters of yours---monetarily and with signs on our woodie and yard-- We urge you to vote to stop the plastic-- one drive along Coast Highway during the summer, past the State parks, and Wetlands with chain-link fences- Would convince you to stop the use of plastic bags all along the coast-- Many thanks for all efforts Phil and Elaine Wilder i Item 7. - 7 HB -260- Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13749 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Charles Burns Description: I think the ban on plastic bags is too costly to Huntington Beach business owners and residents and will not solve the problem. In fact, all it will do is make it more costly to purchase goods in the city. As a long time resident I urge you not to support the ban. If it is passed,me like many others will shop outside of city limits further reducing the city's tax base. Thank you. Charles Burns Expected Close Date: 03/20/2013 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 HB -261- Item 7. - 8 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:10 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13765 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Walt White Description: From: White House [mailto:whiteshb@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday,March 20, 2013 11:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bags s Council, Banning plastic bags makes no sense. We recycle all of ours. I guess we will begin shopping in nearby communities that have not banned the bags. That means less tax revenue for you. Walt&Tricia White 8855 Sutter Circle Unit 518D Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Expected Close Date: 03/21/2013 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 Item 7. - 9 HB -262- Esparza, Patty From: Tricia R [tricia.hwood@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:02 AM To: Boardman, Connie Cc: Fikes, Cathy; Harper, Matthew; Carchio, Joe; Hardy, Jill; Katapodis, Jim; Shaw, Joe; Stephenson, Johanna; Sullivan, Dave Subject: Say NO on BAG BAN Honerable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: I ask the Huntington Beach City Council to vote down a bag ban, or what i prefer to call it,A BAG TAX,that's in the end what it is. But let's put that on the back burner for a second. How did this whole Bag Ban trend get started,the evironmentalist said"Plastic Bags are the urban tumble weed." so between now and the vote, look around as you go around Hungtington Beach, do you see the Urban Tumble weeds? I know when I drive around Hungtington Beach, I do not, I actually can't remember seeing one anytime in recent memory. I do not live in Huntington Beach, I live in West Hollywood(which has just rammed through a bag ban[along with a ban on the sale of clothing with fur] ). But I travel to Huntington Beach often, and shop at the Walmart, Target, and other stores regularly. Why? because of better prices, lower sales taxes, and because you don't have the very outrageous bag ban. If you were to pass the ban, I would shop elsewhere. What about the tons of tourists who come to Huntington Beach, would they reduce, or not shop because of bag bans?Or simply what is happening in West Hollywood,people drop and break tons of stuff, creating a constant mess both inside the store and on the sidewalks/parking lots. What bothers me most about these bag bans is the people pushing them drive huge SUV's 7 days aweek, never take public transportation, walk, or use a bicycle. Are you really ready to legislate how I save the environment with what in the end, results in a new tax,that not even goes to public government, but lines the pockets of the stores? If you see an Urban Tumble Weed on the way to the council meeting to vote, let me know, but I think you should openly state how many you saw during the meeting, for the record, let's be honest about this, and not just a bunch of lemmings jumping on the bandwagon! A matter of real facts! Patricia i HB -263- Item 7. - 10 Esparza, Patty From: pm.hill [pm.hill@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:10 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bags..... I live in Huntington Landmark. Why try to do away with plastic bags?People are still going to use plastic bags for trash and other purposes. I recycle my plastic bags at stores and also use them for trash bags. You want to cut down more trees to get rid of plastic bags?As far as people tossing them on the street,beaches, etc.the people who do that are still going to toss all kinds of trash. I wouldn't mind paper bags if they were like the ones like Trader Joe's provides because they can be used over & over. Cloth bags are heavy to carry and germs build up in them so I won't use them. Better to start a campaign to get folks to recycle plastic bags, bottles, etc. i Item 7. - 11 HB -264- Esparza, Patty From: hennings1 [hen nings1 @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bags Please,please do NOT ban the so useful plastic bags. We don't need more nanny state! Gerald Hennings From my Android phone on T-Mobile.The first nationwide 4G network. 1 HB -265- Item 7. - 12 Esparza, Patty From: Kele Marcus [kele1212@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic bags Hello, \ I live in Huntington Landmark, and I want you to know that I support to ban grocery, department and other stores from providing plastic carryout bags. Stores would be permitted to provide paper carryout bags at a cost, to the patron, of 10 cents each. We use too much plastic in this country and that includes all the plastic bottles. I least we can recycle those. Thank you for your time, Kele Marcus 1 Item 7. - 13 HB -266- Esparza, Patty From: Donald Riscol [art.byriscolI@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic carryout bags Any member of the city council who votes for banning of plastic carry out bags, has no regard for the people of Huntington Beach . Ever thing in our power will be done to assure that you are no longer on the City Council. Don Riscol i xB -267- Item 7. - 14 Esparza, Patty From: HOWARD KNOTT[howardmary.knott@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: plastic bag fiasco Dear Council members: Many of my friends here in Landmark agree with me that we do not want a ban on plastic shopping bags from the grocery stores. Please do not force us to carry used cloth bags to the store or pay a 10 cent per bag penalty. Thank You. Howard Knott Item 7. - 15 xB -268- Esparza, Patty From: CLange1519@aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:19 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: ban on carryout plastic bags I live at Huntington Landmark, which is walking distant to a grocery store. I also have a cat which I rescued. I use the grocery plastic bags for the necessary disposal of cat litter. If they won't now be given to me at the store when I buy groceries then I will have to purchase them for the necessary used cat litter. More money that I do not have to spend now. An added expense as the cat uses the litter pan several times a day. Grocery stores gain and I imagine they are for this, I am not. Please look at other ways to save the planet. Thank you. Colene C Lange 8565 1=allbrook Cir, 718B Huntington Beach Ca 92646 714 964 5758 HB -269- Item 7. - 16 Esparza, Patty From: Mary Massaro fvjmmml 01 0@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:07 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bags Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am requesting that you please vote AGAINST the banning of plastic bags. I recycle plastic bags. I use them for lining my trash cans, storing some of my clothing, covering my shoes when traveling,putting wet clothes and towels and while I do not have a dog, I see my neighbors using them to pick up their dog's poop. I am sure there are many other uses for the plastic bags to numerous to list. If I don't get plastic bags to do the above, I have to purchase them,which is an added cost to me. In addition I am expected to purchase paper bags for 10 cents each. With everyone on tight budgets,why is the City Council adding another burden on its citizens and another law. Yes,we all want to protect the environment, but lets be reasonable. Try to encourage people to use reusable cloth bags but do not pass another law forcing them, and costing them to do so. Thank you. Sincerely, Mrs. Mary Massaro 8566 Larkhall Circle 812C Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 Item 7. - 17 HB -270- Esparza, Patty From: Tom Murphy[murf52@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:09 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic bags PLEASE vote YES to keep plastic bags available in our stores!! It is the most convenient and the sanitary way for us elderly and infirm seniors to carry our purchases to our homes here in Landmark Senior Community. Thank You for your attention to our respectful request. Tom & Ann Marie Murphy 8566 Sierra Circle Unit# 911-A 714-960-5597 FREE Animations for your email I - I HB -271- Item 7. - 18 Esgarza, Patty From: WM. L INGRAM [billmar15@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Ban On Plastic Bags I'm a resident of Huntington Landmark and join with many in my community in asking that this ban on plastic carry-out bags be voted down at your next meeting. There's little doubt that many Huntington Beach residents will shop in other areas which will certainly set well with local merchants. I would suggest, in order to keep peace in the city, that the issue be placed on a ballot and give the voters an opportunity to decide the matter. William Ingram billmar15 at-)verizon.net i Item 7. - 19 HB -272- Esparza, Patty From: Leon Emerson [leonemerson2@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic bags Dear Folks, Hope you will be very cautious about outlawing plastic bags. They have so many uses for us. I know they pollute the beaches and rivers. I don't like that either. A biodegradable plastic bag is made at about twice the costs. Forcing the merchants to use those maybe could maintain the utility and secondary usages of the present plastic bags. We try to use reusable bags but often we forget and they have sanitary downsides which we could remedy by laundering them. Good luck. Keep up the good work you do. Sincerely Leon Emerson, Judge retired. 1 HB -273- Item 7. - 20 Esparza, Patty From: RJBARAK@aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:32 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: plastic bags Council members, live in the Landmark Community for seniors. I like the plastic bag. It is easy to carry because it has handles and is weather proof. A paper bag when wet will fall apart and scatter the contents all over the ground. I also use the plastic bag to line my kitchen trash container. The handles make it easy to tie up the bag and carry to the dumpster. If it gets wet it still retains its contents. Ray Barak i Item 7. - 21 xB -274- Esparza, Patty From: Betty Jane Weigand [bettyjane.weigand@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: Plastic bags I am a resident of Huntington Landmark. I think it is an excellent idea to ban plastic bags! I'm all for it. Betty Jane Weigand Huntington Beach Betty Jane Weigand BeLtyJane.Weigand@Gmail.com 714-536-6916 1 HB -275- Item 7. - 22 Esparza, Patty From: Jo Kraskin 0227jo@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Ban on Plastic Bags To Whom it May Concern: My husband and I would like to respectfully submit our request that you vote AGAINST the ban on plastic bags in Huntington Beach, CA. Of course, there are numerous arguments for and against plastic in all forms in the environment, but we believe their benefit outweighs the negative, especially for plastic bags as reusable, useful items. Please vote AGAINST the ban of plastic bags in Huntington Beach. Many thanks for your consideration. Jo Kvskin i Item 7. - 23 H -276- Esparza, Patty From: Roberta Shulsinger[rshulsinger@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: RE" Plastic carry out bags I believe they should be banned. There are enough available in grocery store produce departmenta; this is a way to cut way back on pollution. Roberta Shulsinger,Huntington Landmark Seniour Community. i HB -277- Item 7. - 24 Esparza, Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:24 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Plastic bags according to a Landmark resident One more:.. Johanna Stephenson /Executive Assistant/iohanno.ster)henson@surfcity-hb.orci/Direct: 714.536.5575/Fax: 714.536.5233 From: Jeanne Kerr [mailto:jeannekerr@verizon.net] — -- _ Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic bags according to a Landmark resident All, Please do NOT approve such a ban on plastic bags - Our Huntington Landmark residents find dozens of RE-USES for the plastic bags and most of us either forget to carry reusable containers or we want plastic bags for other uses! I know you believe you are protecting our environment, ocean creatures etc, - but surely you must also consider the many trees that will be cut to provide paper for bags - PLEASE vote NO on this issue. Respectfully, Jeanne Kerr, Board Director, Huntington Landmark Senior Adult Community i Item 7. - 25 HB -278- Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:04 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fwd: H.B. steps closer to banning plastic bags Supplemental communication Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Harper, Matthew"<Matthew.Harper@surfcity-hb.org> Date: March 21, 2013, 12:31:53 AM PDT To: "Shaw,Joe"<Joe.Shaw@surfcity-hb.org>, "Joan Flynn" <iflynn@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Re: H.B.steps closer to banning plastic bags Since Councilman Shaw replied to the entire council, this electronic correspondence should be included in the record. MAYOR PRO TEMPORE MATTHEW HARPER City of Huntington Beach Sent from my iPad On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:40 AM, "Shaw,Joe" <Joe.Shaw@surfcity-hb.org>wrote: I don't know if this is a parody or if you really mean it. Joe 714-858-0599 On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:44 PM, "Jim Knapp"<iimCZDoctitlerep.com>wrote: The west side weenies are alive and well in Huntington Beach.The plastic bag ban is another step down the slippery slope Huntington Beach being to a true nanny state. It's clear that at least four members of the Huntington Beach Counsel have a wet dream of everyone in the city living in high rise apartments where we write software from our home office and walk to Whole Foods to buy over priced fake organic groceries that we carry home in our reusable bags.The bag ban is another example of the shrinking Republican Island previously known as Orange County. Last one out grab flag! See you in Texas. Jim Knapp Huntington Beach 1 HB -279- Item 7. - 26 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13796 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Peter McGrath Description: If you are going to ban plastic bags from grocery stores, etc., are you also going to ban the plastic bags used to pick up dog poop?There are a lot of them and they are not reusable! Expected Close Date: 03/24/2013 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 Item 7. - 27 HB -280- Esparza, Pa!ty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:06 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: plastic bags Johanna Stephenson /Executive Assistant/fohanna.stephenson@surfcity-hb.org /Direct: 714.536.5575/Fax: 714.536.5233 From: PP Busher [mailto:ppbusher@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:10 PM To. CITY COUNCIL Subject: plastic bags Dear City Council Members, Please do not vote to ban plastic bags from Huntington Beach. Most people who bring cloth bags to the grocery store use plastic kitchen bags that they buy for their garbage in their homes. We don`t gain anything at the landfills. Cloth bags are not sanitary. They are used repeatedly and bring germs to the counters in the grocery store. Sincerely, Margaret Busher 16211 Woodstock Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 i HB -281- Item 7. - 28 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13823 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Scott Tomehick Description: I wish to strongly oppose the possible banning of plastic bags on several grounds - A) It is beyond the scope of the local city council. Just as vehicle emission standards are determined at the state and federal level, determining which products should be regulated should be at this level as well. Any ban could be challenged in court and be rejected on these grounds-think NY city council soda ban. B)It is bad for business. Given that you want sales tax to be generated in HB,why would you want a consumer to travel to an adjacent city that doesn't have a bag ban to make their day to day purchases? C)The ban is based on pseudo-science. It has not been proven that plastic bags are bad for the environment. Plastic is used in countless products (most of which aren't regulated by the city council)and if properly disposed, does not have a negative environmental impact. I have not personally seen any bags littering the beach, either. D)Reusing grocery bags could be a potential vector for disease. If a bag was used to store poultry and it isn't properly sanitized, it could harbor Salmonella bacteria. E)Plastic bags are very usefull when reused for other purposes around the house. For the above reasons and others, I respectfully wish to state my opposition to the ban of plastic bags. Sincerely, Scott Tomehick Expected Close Date: 03/27/2013 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 Item 7. - 29 HB -282- Esparza,Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:08 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Reusable Bag Ordinance--Thank you! Johanna Stephenson /Executive Assistant /johanno.stephenson@surfcity-hb.orci /Direct: 714.536.5575/Fax: 714.536.5233 From: hmeyers001@verizon.net [mailto:hmeyers001@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:15 PM To: Shaw, Joe Cc: Stephenson, Johanna Subject: Reusable Bag Ordinance--Thank you! Hello Council member Shaw, I am a resident of Huntington Beach who is very concerned about environmental issues. I wanted to thank you so much for your work on the Reusable Bag Ordinance. I was pleased to see the City Council vote in favor of the ordinance at the first reading on March W I trope the ordinance will be adopted after the 2nd reading. Thanks again, Hildy Meyers i HB -283- Item 7. - 30 o � �a [OLD CITY OF HUNTINGTON City Council Interoffice Communication SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members IWeeti n9 Deter / �/ R FROM: Matthew Harper, Council Member Agenda Item No..-.-- ®ATE: March 28, 2013 SUBJECT. Proposed Amendment to Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance I am proposing this amendment to the Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance to clarify the current"audit provision" contained in the ordinance.. One of my objections to the ordinance as proposed is that there are no performance measures as to whether this change in law would actually cause a reduction of bags from retail establishments in Huntington Beach. This change would call for accountability for whether that goal is achieved. This proposed amendment will require that stores subject to the ordinance begin tracking how many paper, plastic, and reusable bags are being distributed on the date the ordinance goes into effect--5.95.070 Operative date. This Chapter shall become operative six months from the effective date of this Ordinance, except for subsection 5.95.040 (e) which shall take effect 30 days after adoption of the ordinance. This will allow the city to measure the number of bags being distributed for six months before the remainder of the ordinance becomes operative. Having this data will allow the City to create a baseline by which it can measure future bag distribution. It is important to note that the City Attorney has advised me that this amendment, if approved, will require a new first reading. 5.95.040 Regulation of Recyclable Paper Carryout Bags a. Any store that provides a recyclable paper carryout bag to a customer must charge the customer ten cents ($0.10) for each bag provided, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. b. No store shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer any portion of the ten cent($0.10) charge required in Subsection (a), except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. c. All stores must indicate on the customer receipt the number of recyclable paper carryout bags provided and the total amount charged for the bags. d. All monies collected by a store under this Chapter will be retained by the store and may be used only for the following purposes: 1) Costs associated with complying with the requirements of this Chapter; 2) Actual costs of providing recyclable paper carryout bags; or 3) Costs associated with a store's educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags, if any. Proposed Amendment to Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance Page 2 March 28, 2013 e. All stores shall keep complete and accurate monthly records for a minimum period of three years from the date of sale, of the total number of reusable, plastic(if any) and recyclable paper carryout bags provided and the total amount of monies collected for providing recyclable paper carryout bags, which record shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by any City employee authorized to enforce this Section. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the store's address. All stores shall submit an annual report to the City detailing the monthly records in a format that may be easily discernible using generally recognized accounting standards to the City. A responsible agent or officer of the store shall confirm that the information provided is accurate and complete. f. Any store that fails to maintain complete records or documents, maintains false, inaccurate or misleading records, or otherwise fails to comply with this section be in violation of this Section and such store shall be subject the fines set forth in Section 5.95.080. xc: Fred Wilson, City Manager Bob Hall, Assistant City Manager Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Joan Flynn, City Clerk Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:56 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Plastic Bags From: Mary Lee Smith [mailto:smithmaryleel9@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Plastic Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing in regards to the banning of plastic bags in our city. I am definitely against this. Cloth bags can become contaminated with meat juices, moldy residue from fruits and vegetables, etc. Why not ban disposable diapers? They take up a lot more room in our landfills than plastic bags. Paper bags mean cutting down forests. Don't you have anything better to do? I'm tired of the "nanny state" and now we have a "nanny city"!!!! DO NOT BAN PLASTIC BAGS Thank you, Mary Lee Smith 16242 Woodstock Ln. Huntington Bch., CA 92647 39PPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dete: /aA0z,33 Agenda Item No. Es pa rza, Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: From: ptljjrob@aol.com [mai Ito:ptljjrob@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: As residents of Huntington Beach Landmark we are strongly opposed to the ban on plastic bags. Joe and Joan Robinson +` SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee*V : 0/3 Awds ftm t4m ,� Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13846 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Compliment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Gloria Nafel Description: I am thrilled that Huntington Beach has passed the single use plastic bag ban. I understand that there is another vote before it becomes law. I wish to encourage your support in finalizing this law. I am proud to live in a city which will be among the first in Orange County to address this important environmental issue. Expected Close Date: 03/29/2013 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee"I ©ate: Agenda Item No., 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13845 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Tom Stanton Description: As a longtime resident of Huntington Beach (42+years), I wholeheartedly support the ban on disposable plastic bags. Reusable bags have become the norm, and there is no reason to continue the use of these bags that are bad for the environment and cause too much waste in our city. Thanks! Expected Close Date: 03/29/2013 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date:_J�L. Agenda Item No. Esparza, Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:25 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Please ban plastic bags on April 1 From: Debbie Killey [mailto:dbkilley@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:24 PM To: Shaw, Joe Cc: Stephenson, Johanna Subject: Please ban plastic bags on April 1 Dear Joe, I have read many editorials in the Wave and Independent on this topic and as a resident of Huntington Beach for 15 years who uses her own bags, I want you to know that I fully support the ban. Please vote on April 1 to ban the bags. Thank you, Debbie Killey SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Moe*V©ge: -013 -'- Nands fern No.,� 1 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 13855 Entered on: 03/29/2013 08:51 AM Customer Information Name:Christine Vitamante Phone:(714) 960-4248 Address:7371 Coho Dr Unit 103 Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:citamante@verizon.net 92648 Request Classification Topic:City Council -Agenda & Public Request type:Comment Hearing Comments Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description Please please go forward with banning the plastic bags here in HB. There is no need for thousands and thousands of these bags to be blowing into the ocean and flying around. No one needs that many. They will get over it. I lived in Europe in 2001 and they had already implemented this in most countries. Do not listen to negative emails who most likely are involved with the companies selling them. Why else? Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Date Expect Closed: 04/08/2013 Date Closed: 04/01/2013 09:32 AM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: SUPPLEMENTAL Date: coMMUNICATION Agenda 1W, No.,,� http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=1274923&type=0 4/1/2013 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 13880 Entered on: 04/01/2013 2:55 PM Customer Information ame:Bob Watts Phone:714-842-6980 Address:18QO Delaware St. Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:oldbobw@yahoo.com 92648 Request Classification Topic:City Council -Agenda & Public Request type:Complaint Hearing Comments Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description WELL CONNIE, THATS A DUMB THING TO VOTE FOR, IN LIGHT OF U NOT "GOING GREEN" W/STYROFOAM LUNCHES EVERYDAY AT ALL CITY DEPTS & FUNCTIONS. OF COURSE U KNOW I'M TALKIN ABOUT THE 1 WITH THE "EXEMPTION" BUT U COULDN'T SAY WHY, SO WHAT THE HELL ARE U TRYIN TO PROVE W/THIS ONE? CAT GOT UR TONGUE? JUST MAKE EM BOTH CITY WIDE! IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? RSVP ASAP... Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Date Expect Closed: 04/08/2013 Date Closed: 04/01/2013 2:58 PM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfeity/printrequest.php?curid=1277287&type=0 4/1/2013 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 13881 Entered on: 04/01/2013 2:56 PM Customer Information Name:Bob Watts Phone:714-842-6980 Address:18900 Delaware St. Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:oldbobw@yahoo.com 92648 Request Classification Topic:City Hear Co Col -Agenda & Public Request type:Complaint ents Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description WELL CONNIE, THATS A DUMB THING TO VOTE FOR, IN LIGHT OF U NOT "GOING GREEN" W/STYROFOAM LUNCHES EVERYDAY AT ALL CITY DEPTS & FUNCTIONS. OF COURSE U KNOW I'M TALKIN ABOUT THE 1 WITH THE "EXEMPTION" BUT U COULDN'T SAY WHY, SO WHAT THE HELL ARE U TRYIN TO PROVE W/THIS ONE? CAT GOT UR TONGUE? JUST MAKE EM BOTH CITY WIDE! IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? RSVP ASAP... Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Date Expect Closed: 04/08/2013 Date Closed: 04/01/2013 2:57 PM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=1277288&type=0 4/1/2013 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 13886 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Martha Fuchs Description: I am against the City Council's idea of banning plastic bags. If you ban plastic bags in the City of Huntington Beach, I will do my shopping elsewhere and you will lose the sales tax on my purchases! I am sure you have better things to do. Thank you for seriously considering my concern. Expected Close Date: 04/02/2013 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: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:27 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: plastic bags Good morning, I hope you had a nice weekend! Should I still forward you these items or put them into the Pipeline? Johanna Stephenson /Executive Assistant /iohanna.sephenson@surfcity-hb.org /Direct: 714.536.5575 / Fax: 714.536.5233 From: Carol Barbee [mailto:carolfudgey@aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: plastic bags I am writing to you to say that the ruling to ban the use of plastic bags at stores is ridiculous! With all the problems that this city has I can't understand the importance of banning plastic bags! Someone had an editorial in The Register yesterday saying he would shop in another city & I agree! Fountain Valley is a great city & they also have a wonderful senior center so, I'll head over their way! I think HB will lose business.....people will not like bringing their own bags & if they forget, they won't want to buy one!!! This is too crazy!!! Carol Barbee, Huntington Beach Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 14026 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Joetta THOMPSON Description: I will be brief... I have read the newspaper articles and DO NOT FEEL WE SHOULD RESTRICT THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS IN HB. - I and many of use reuse or recycle the plastic bags. - reusable bags can carry germs or worse. - paper bags must be made from wood and are heavy to ship to local areas....costing more in gas, depleting our forests. - Local people who make the bags would lose their jobs. - HB has a lot of visitors.....and they will keep om polluting and leaving them....therefore punishing all of use who use the bag wisely. - some reusble bags are not recyclable and are shipped here from other countries. I hope you listen to all the comments on why we should keep plastic bags and just keepon teaching others to reuse and recyle. Thanks you. Jo Thompson Expected Close Date: 04/17/2013 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: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:05 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16310 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Complaint Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Ronald Smith Description: From: Ron Smith [mailto:rgsmith@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:09 PM To: Shaw, Joe Cc: Dombo, Johanna Subject: Bag Ordinance Councilman Shaw, Your successful establishment of the nanny ordinance in my city is another example of government run amok. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Rest assured that I will do all that I can to see that your actions for "my own good" will cease as your term and subsequent service ends in 2014 when you fail to achieve re- election. Ronald Smith, Huntington Beach Resident Expected Close Date: November 5, 2013 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: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:36 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16305 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Complaint Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Sandy Description: Hello Joe, After living in Huntington Beach since 1963, I am writing for the 1 st time to the city council to communicate my anger in regards to the new bag law. On Friday, I bought a full basket of groceries at Ralph's. They refused to bag my groceries unless I paid 10 cents per bag. I will not pay money to have my groceries bagged given I pay a premium to shop at Ralphs. I had to put each item in my car which is not setup for handling a bunch of small items (I drive a small BMW Z4). As a result my $2500 laptop was damaged. When I arrived home, I had to take a many trips into the house. The result was an extra 30 minutes was added to my day and my computer was damaged. After traveling all week this is not the experience I needed after a long hard week. On a cold rainy day do you expect us to place our items in our cars one by one as we stand in the rain? How will older people handle this? What about people who live in a condo or apartment where their walk is long. On a side note, I do not want my car filled with extra bags in the event I need to go shopping. Adding clutter to my car will take away from the cars enjoyment. I am all for the environment however there needs to be a balance between living in a civilized society that supports the extreme pressure we are all under. For example restricting the pile of advertisement I receive from grocery store in the mail and instead advertising on-line accomplishes the mission and saves on the environment. I live on Edwards Hill and I know my neighbors are equally upset. I will never shop in Huntington Beach again until this silly rule is abolished. -Sandy Expected Close Date: November 5, 2013 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 wwNnworqmocxcv � Cham6aro/Cmmmerce ' November 1,2813 Honorable Mayor Boardman � Members of the City Council | City nf Huntington Beach | 2000Ma|n5treet ! Huntington Beach,CA92d48 ! | am,whtin8 this letter to request a delay in any further action on the proposed 8tyrofoam ban currently � being drafted by City staff until at least after the holidays sotthat the business community can-have an � opportuoitytofurtherieseanchthisisioepfoandcontU,betterunderstandtheimpacts, especially financial nn our small businesses here.)n Huntington Beach. ' We have yet to_seethe actual proposal to determine exactly whafthe ban.might encompass,arid should � you bring this forward to Council'on November 18'h,we feel there just isn't an adequate amount of time � for'due diligence'on everyone/s part and then prepare an adequate response.As a business organization � representing business:we aria equally concerned about protecting-the environment our businesses exist \ , in. But there needs to be a maintained balance with an-attitude of how.can we make things work for � even/oneand not Justatthe�expensenfuursma|[businesses who-do not need one more restriction ' imposed ohhow^they operate their business. 8utbeforeanythingcanhappen, thebusinesneomeed8ubemadeavvarenfwhads happening,weneed to understand the issue from bothsides of the argument, and,we need to consider other alternatives to i a drastic ban. For all that we need time and respectfully request this delay in any action by the Council. � Si � � Jerry L Wheeler,Sr. |8M President/CEO / ' Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 16314 Entered on: 1110412013 12:21 PM Customer Information Name:Frances Dorrough Phone:(714) 964-2074 Address: 10412 Christmas Dr. Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:fdorrough@yahoo.com . 92646 Request Classification Topic:City Council -Agenda & Public Request type:Comment Hearing Comments Status:Open Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description Since the Stater's opened at Adam and Brookhurst, I have brought most of the family groceries there. Thank to your ruling that pastic bags can not be used and paper bags must have a per bag charge, I'm now shopping at the Stater's in Costa Mesa. I know you do not care about one citzen but I hope that enough others join me in this protest to make you reconsider your ruling which hurts HB businesses. Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Date Expect Closed: 11/12/2013 Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/stirfcity/printrequest.php?curid=1504457&type=0 11/4/2013 Print Request Page 1 of 2 Request: 16316 Entered on: 11/04/2013 2:11 PM Customer Information Name:Jeff Pratto Phone:(714) 840-9977 Address: Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:jeffpratto64@gmail.com Request Classification Topic:City Council - Agenda & Public Request type:Question Hearing Comments Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description Honorable Council Members, I had a wonderful freedom-laden experience this past weekend grocery shopping in FOUNTAIN VALLEY and drove home with three hundred dollars of product in plastic bags, which I will reuse and recycle. Sure, I can afford .10 apiece for paper, but I refuse to bow to such nanny state policies as this Council has mandated. I have initiated my own social media campaign, urging my fellow HBers to do the same. The response has been 100% positive toward my view and I found that many did the same this past weekend. I'm soon awaiting soft drink limits, fatty food taxes, and prevailing wage laws to soon be handed down to your loyal subjects. I cannot believe all eight members of this Council had their hand in this bit of social architecture. Not in this town!! Please, one of you, let me know how you will move to action when you see the people voting, not only at the ballot box against this face slap to our collective common sense, but also with their dollars? Thank you, Jeff Pratto Reason Closed This item passed on a 4-3 vote (Mayor Boardman, Shaw, Hardy, Katapodis- Yes) (Sullivan, Harper, Carchio - No). Thank you for taking the time to send your comments to the City Council. Your message will be kept in the record for this item. Sincerely, Johanna Stephenson Date Expect Closed: 11/15/2013 Date Closed: 11/04/2013 2:16 PM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=1504786&type=0 11/4/2013 Print Request Page 2 of 2 Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=l 504786&type=0 11/4/2013 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:32 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: plastic grocery bag band Is this too late? From: Jeff Swan [mailto:jswan@kmbs.konicaminolta.us] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:31 PM To: Shaw, Joe Cc: Dombo, Johanna Subject: plastic grocery bag band Please repeal this ridiculous band. In the mean time, I will spend my grocery dollars in near by Fountain Valley. Jeffrey H. Swan Special Products Manager- Wide Format Konica Minolta Business Solutions Dealer Division- Western Region 714-756-0260 i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:09 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16384 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Complaint Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: John Hunter Description: As a resident of Huntington Beach and a former small business owner, I try to support our local businesses. With the implementation of the Reusable bag ordinance, I find it a great inconvenience remembering to bring bags to the local stores I frequent. I have come to the conclusion it is easier for me to patronize businesses close to where I work (Tustin area) on my way home, than to worry about how I'm going to get a grocery cart full of merchandise to my vehicle. If you really want to eliminate trash in our city, have you considered banning the solicitors that place unwanted and unneeded brochures, pamphlets, business cards, etc. on the porches, lawns and driveways of our houses? I do not know the legal definition of litter, but I see no difference between someone placing pamphlets on my porch and the person that throws (places) a McDonalds drink cup or wrapper in my yard. Both are unwanted and both have the company names on them. Expected Close Date: November 10, 2013 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: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:19 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16473 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Complaint Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Joetta THOMPSON Description: From:jcjst@aol.com [mailto.jojst@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 3:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Reinstate Plastic Bags in HB Just wanted you to know that I have to bring (8) EIGHT!! REUSABLE BAGS WITH ME TO THE GROCERY STORE. I am not "a spring chicken" any more and can not carry heavy bags. Therefore, they can only put a few(sometimes 1 item if it is heavy) in the bag. I've filled up my cart before I've even shopped. I and most(is not all) of my neighbors recycled the bags....using them when walking the dog, for small bathroom, bedroom cans, to put newspapers in to recycle, for used magzines to donate, and so many other things. Slowly our freedom is being taken away, by you, our elected council members, who are supposed to stand up for their neighbors; by Obama Care and numerous other things. Let's not forget contamination from using these bags without washing them all the time. Also, how many stores are reporrting an uptick in theft from people putting items in their bags and stealing them? Please change this useless law now. Expected Close late: November 19, 2013 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