Agenda

Return

C. 27

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
Date:	December 4, 2012

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Development of ordinances to prohibit the distribution of single-use plastic bags and polystyrene containers. Project No. 7517-6W7078

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 12/04/2012

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:	Cece Sellgren (925) 313-2296
cc:	J. Bueren, Public Works Director R.M. Avalon, Deputy Public Works Director M. Carlson, Flood Control C. Sellgren, County Watershed Program C. Windham, Flood Control W. Nelson, Dept. of Conservation & Development L. Thomson, Dept. of Conservation & Development

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: December 4, 2012
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

AUTHORIZE the County Public Works Department to explore development of ordinances to prohibit the distribution of single-use plastic bags and polystyrene food and beverage containers; and to REPORT to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on an as-needed basis for guidance on the process of their development, Countywide. (100% Stormwater Utility Assessment revenue funds)

FISCAL IMPACT:

Costs to explore and develop these ordinances will be funded through stormwater utility fees (Fund 251700). In pursuing partnerships with interested Cities a proportionate recovery of CEQA costs will be requested.

BACKGROUND:

I. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)

In 2009, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board issued the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) to 76 Bay Area cities, counties, and flood protection districts, including Contra Costa County and all of its cities. The MRP affects a wide range of government and business activities in an effort to reduce pollution to local streams and the San Francisco Bay. The County Watershed Program, located within the Public Works Department, administers the MRP on behalf of unincorporated Contra Costa County communities. The Departments of Public Works, Conservation and Development, Health Services, and Sheriff all play substantial roles in the implementation of the MRP.

The MRP identifies trash as a pollutant affecting water quality for the first time. As a requirement of the MRP, the County had to prepare a Short-Term Trash Reduction Plan to address how to reduce the amount of trash entering storm drains, creeks, and ultimately the San Francisco Bay by 40% by 2014. The County will also have to submit a 70% trash reduction plan for 2017 and a 100% trash reduction plan for 2022.

The County received guidance document(s) from the Regional Board needed to determine trash load reduction calculations and trash load reduction credits approximately three weeks prior to the MRP mandated deadline. The short turn-around period allowed for no time to present the trash reduction plan before the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. The County submitted the 40% Short-Term Trash Reduction Plan on January 24, 2012, outlining activities to achieve a 45% trash load reduction, allowing a 5% cushion beyond the minimum required.

The Short-Term Trash Reduction Plan outlines actions that the County must implement prior to July 1, 2014, to reduce trash entering local creeks and streams. The County chose a variety of activities to achieve the 40% Trash Load Reduction. Some of the activities are based upon trash removed from upland and riparian areas, maintenance of storm drain catch basins, and installation of devices to prevent trash from entering into and traveling through the storm drain network. Other activities, which are more difficult to quantify, are given trash load reduction credits. These activities include public education campaigns, single-use plastic bag bans, polystyrene container bans, and anti-littering activities. The County chose a number of activities to ensure that it met the criteria. Two of the trash load reduction activities chosen by the County are the development of ordinances to prohibit the distribution of single-use plastic bags and the polystyrene containers.

Both bans outlined in the Trash Reduction Plan have several tiers of implementation that can be chosen. The CAPITALIZED TEXT represents the options chosen for each type of ban in Contra Costa County’s 40% Trash Reduction Plan.
• Single-Use Bags Ban Options
1. Prohibit distribution of single-use plastic bags at large supermarkets (6% Trash Load Reduction Credit).
2. Prohibit distribution of single-use plastic bags at retail establishments that sell packaged foods (8% Trash Load Reduction Credit).
3. PROHIBIT DISTRIBUTIONS OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS AT ALL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, EXCEPT RESTAURANTS (10% TRASH LOAD REDUCTION CREDIT).
• Polystyrene Container Ban Options
1. Prohibit distribution of polystyrene foam single-use food and beverage containers at County-sponsored events or on County-owned property (2% Trash Load Reduction Credit).
2. PROHIBIT DISTRIBUTION OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM SINGLE-USE FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AT ALL FOOD SERVICE VENDORS (8% TRASH LOAD REDUCTION CREDIT).

The County (like all jurisdictions) has the right to amend their trash reduction plan prior to the July 2014 deadline for implementation of the 40% trash reduction plans.

II. OBJECTIVES

The County has considered several objectives to guide the development of single-use plastic bag and polystyrene container ordinances. They include:
• Comply with the 40% trash reduction requirements by the July 1, 2014, implementation deadline.
• Minimize impacts to local businesses.
• Create a regional approach that optimizes equity for businesses between incorporated cities and unincorporated County.
• Develop ordinances and conduct CEQA analysis in the most cost efficient manner.
• Minimize risk of litigation.

III. EMERGING ISSUES DISCERNED IN DISCUSSION WITH OTHER PARTIES

To get a sense of the issues and feasibility of these ordinances, County Watershed Program staff conducted an initial outreach to key individuals within cities and agencies. Staff met with and held discussions with staff at solid waste authorities, the Department of Conservation and Development, cities that have committed to plastic bag and/or polystyrene container bans in their trash reduction plans, and interested third parties. These discussions have highlighted a number of issues that pertain to the potential plastic bag and polystyrene container ordinances.

Desire To Implement Ordinances at the Broadest Level as Possible To Create Regional Business Equity

The County has the ability to analyze impacts at a Countywide level for actions that occur only within unincorporated County. This would allow for easy adaptation of the County’s CEQA document by cities when they adopt their own ordinances. This would reduce costs for the cities and likely speed Countywide implementation of these two bans. There would also likely be a reduced period of time when there is inequity in regulations between unincorporated and incorporated communities, which would lead to reduced impacts on businesses that first comply with the ordinances.

Varied Landscape Among Solid Waste Service Providers

There are two Solid Waste Authorities (SWA) within Contra Costa County — Recyclemore (the Western Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority) in western Contra Costa County and the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. Recyclemore provides only post-collection services (processing and disposal). There are also several small special districts that provide solid waste services in unincorporated County, including Kensington Community Services District, Rodeo Sanitary District, Mt. View Sanitary District, and Byron Sanitary District. The County administers four franchise agreements for solid waste pick up in East County, Central County, Crockett/Port Costa, and western Contra Costa County (within Recyclemore’s jurisdiction).

Recyclemore is moving forward quickly with approving a single-use plastic bag ban. The Central County SWA is not pursuing a single-use plastic bag ban at this time. Neither SWA is currently pursuing a polystyrene container ban. Staff has not yet contacted the smaller special districts.

Desire To Implement Bans Through a Tiered Approach

Most cities pursuing either ban have expressed a desire to implement bans through a tiered approach to reduce initial impacts to businesses. Consequently, most cities are planning to implement lower-tiered plastic bag and polystyrene container bans at the 40% level (Option 1 for plastic bags and Option 1 for polystyrene described in Section I).

Desire To Implement Bans Quickly To Demonstrate Progress

All municipalities that have chosen one or both bans must implement the bans prior to July 1, 2014. However, some cities have Councils who wish to move more quickly than the deadline in the Short-Term Trash Reduction Plan. The County planning and environmental review process is often slower than that of a city, which may lead to impatience and potential lost opportunity for regional cooperation.

Develop Ban(s) at a Minimum of Cost

Many of the cities interested in developing the ban(s) wish to do so at minimum cost. These municipalities are looking for the lowest level CEQA document necessary to approve a ban and using already approved CEQA documents to write their own documents. This may run counter to the County’s high standards, especially if a Countywide CEQA analysis is conducted.

Lack of Support by Clean Water Program Management Committee

The Contra Costa Clean Water Program is an umbrella organization made-up of all Contra Costa cities, the County, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, which are regulated under the MRP. The Program develops and enters into joint activities that have Countywide benefits or meet Countywide requirements. This structure makes the Clean Water Program an ideal organization to lead a Countywide effort to implement plastic bag and polystyrene container bans.

The Management Committee of the Clean Water Program is made up of appointed city/county/district staff members who develop policy and expenditure plans for group activities. A subcommittee of the Management Committee, called the Public Information and Participation Committee (PIP Committee), reviewed Recyclemore’s efforts towards a single-use plastic bag ban and developed a model ordinance for the Management Committee’s consideration. A majority of the Management Committee representatives expressed concern about developing a joint single-use plastic bag ban ordinance. Ultimately an “example” ordinance was passed, but the discussion made it clear that Clean Water Program support for a Countywide ban(s) would be difficult.

Developing Partnerships with Interested Cities

County Watershed Program staff has attended meetings with staff from cities interested in either ordinance. The County has proposed to develop ordinances for the two bans with the participation of those cities that wish to participate. Staff members from these cities are interested in pursuing a joint effort, but are also concerned about the County’s time line.

Financial Contribution by Cities That Would be Covered by the Ordinances for the CEQA Document

To offset costs associated with a Countywide CEQA analysis, the County has suggested a financial contribution of $10,000 per ban for preparation of a joint Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This proposition has been met with a cool response.

Concerns by SF Regional Board Staff and Board Members Regarding the Credit Based Trash Reduction Activities

Both staff and members of the SF Regional Board have expressed concerns that municipalities are relying too heavily upon credit-based trash reduction activities in the trash reduction plans. Discussions between municipal and Program staff with Regional Board staff indicate that credits assigned to trash reduction activities may be reduced for the 2014 submittal of 70% and 100% trash reduction plans. This would likely reduce the amount of credit received for single-use plastic bag and polystyrene container ordinances.

IV. OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

1. SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAG AND/OR POLYSTYRENE CONTAINER ORDINANCES IMPLEMENTED IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND CEQA DOCUMENT ANALYZES IMPACTS ONLY WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY.
a. Pros: This option would have a limited area for analysis, which would likely reduce the amount of time to produce the CEQA document and reduce the cost to produce it. The reduced area of analysis may reduce the potential for litigation.
b. Cons: This would have a minimal effect Countywide, and would likely create some business inequity between unincorporated County and neighboring cities until those cities adopt similar/same ban(s), including complying with CEQA at their own costs and on their own time frame.

2. SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAG AND/OR POLYSTYRENE CONTAINER ORDINANCES IMPLEMENTED IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND CEQA DOCUMENT ANALYZES IMPACTS THROUGHOUT ALL OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CITIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORDINANCE(S) AND REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFTS, PRIOR TO PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE CEQA DOCUMENT.
a. Pros: This option would allow the County to develop ordinances that would streamline the CEQA process for cities wanting to implement a ban(s) and could achieve a Countywide implementation of the ban(s) most quickly. This would likely reduce the period of time where unequal business climates in unincorporated County would occur.
b. Cons: This option would likely require a more detailed CEQA analysis to adequately cover the complexities of the potential impacts to businesses in both the cities and the County. An EIR analyzing impacts Countywide would likely cost much more than one analyzing impacts only within unincorporated County. Having a wider-ranging effect, it will also more likely garner the attention of litigious anti-ban organizations.

3. SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAG AND/OR POLYSTYRENE CONTAINER ORDINANCES IMPLEMENTED IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND CEQA DOCUMENT ANALYZES IMPACTS ONLY IN THOSE CITIES THAT CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO COUNTY CEQA EFFORT.
a. Pros: This option would optimize existing interest of cities in developing the ban(s) and would save the County in CEQA costs. Potential ban(s) would be quickly developed in those municipalities that wish to pursue the bans and participate financially. The County would reduce its CEQA costs through financial contributions of the cities.
b. Cons: This option would likely create an initial inequity in business climate between those municipalities that pass the ordinances and those who do not. The inequity would likely last longer than in Option 2, as additional municipalities would have to complete their own CEQA analysis prior to adoption of similar/same ordinances. The requirement to provide financial contribution would likely reduce participation by cities, particularly small cities.

4. WAIT FOR SOLID WASTE AUTHORITIES (SWA) AND RELATED SPECIAL DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAG AND/OR POLYSTYRENE CONTAINER ORDINANCES WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. ALLOW THE COUNTY TO ADOPT BANS WITHIN AREAS WHERE INDIVIDUAL SWA’S AND/OR SPECIAL DISTRICTS HAVE APPROVED ORDINANCES.
a. Pros: This option would minimize the effort, risk, and costs of the County to develop the ordinance(s). It would allow the County to adopt Recyclemore’s single-use plastic bag CEQA document upon approval of Recyclemore’s Board of Directors and completion of the 35-day legal challenge period. This would allow for rapid implementation of the ordinances in West County.
b. Cons: This would provide the County a limited level of control to implement the ordinances(s). There are two solid waste authorities in Contra Costa County (Recyclemore and Central County Solid Waste Authority). It is unknown how long it would take Central County Solid Waste Authority to approve model ordinances(s). The County has no direct influence over the various sanitary, community service, and other districts that administer solid waste disposal. It would likely take considerable time and effort to encourage each district to implement the bans. The County may not meet the time line specified in the Trash Reduction Plan. The remainder of unincorporated Contra Costa County would still need County action and CEQA analysis to implement the two ordinances.

5. SUPPORT STATEWIDE LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT DISTRIBUTION OF PLASTIC BAG AND/OR POLYSTYRENE CONTAINERS.
a. Pros: This option would minimize the County’s effort to develop ordinances to prohibit single-use plastic bag and/or polystyrene container ordinances. This option would nullify risk of litigation against the County.
b. Cons: This option would remove any control over the process and time line to implement either ordinance. There would likely be a significant probability that the Trash Reduction Plan deadline would not be met.

6. MODIFY THE SHORT-TERM REDUCTION PLAN TO EXCLUDE THE TWO ORDINANCES AND FOCUS TRASH REDUCTION ACTIVITIES INTO OTHER AREAS.
a. Pros: This option would avoid or postpone the cost and effort required to implement the ordinances. It would allow the County to wait for potential changes in the credit amounts for implementation of the bans. “Credit based” activities have received criticisms from Regional Board members recently and are expected to be modified prior to submittal of the 70% trash reduction plan in 2014.
b. Cons: This option would require the County to implement additional activities to overcome the loss of 18% credits associated with the ordinances. Since the County submitted a short-term plan with an extra 5% credit, the County would only need to generate an additional 13% reduction in trash load. The additional reduction could be implemented through tripling the amount of on-land trash removed (cost unknown), OR tripling the amount of trash removed from creeks (cost unknown) OR doubling the frequency of street sweeping of all roads with curb and gutter (~$200,000/yr) or a combination of these activities.

V. NEXT STEPS

County staff intends to explore and resolve several issues related to the development of these ordinances including:
-Meet with staff from municipalities who have successfully implemented similar bans to learn about the process they followed.
-Meet with interested third parties to understand important issues to them.
-Determine who will act as Project Manager and set a budget for development of the ordinances.
-Meet with DCD Planning staff to determine the best approach for CEQA analysis and documentation.
-Continue to meet with interested Contra Costa municipalities regarding process and progress.
-Participate in outreach events to promote the proposed ordinances and receive feedback regarding their development and implementation.

Staff requests that this item be referred to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee for guidance moving forward.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

Failure to implement the ordinances prohibiting the distribution of single-use plastic bag and polystyrene containers would require the County to make up a minimum 13% trash load credit through other activities. The costs of the additional trash reduction activities are difficult to estimate for all options. Doubling the frequency of street sweeping would cost approximately $200,000 per year. These activities would likely be able to be reevaluated in 2014, when the 70% trash reduction plan will be presented to the San Francisco Regional Board.

CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:

Not applicable.