17 - Laserfiche WebLink

supported by the California Grocers Association because it would set a State -wide standard and apply equally to grocers of all sizes. The other bill with a proposed ban, on single use foam food containers, is AB 2138 (Chesbro). This bill, while considered "active is still being considered in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where its status is 'under submission' following a May hearing. AB 2138 would ban, effective July 1, 2011, foam food containers and single use plastic bags for take -out food, and instead require recyclable or compostable alternative food containers and bags. The law would apply to "a store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, catering truck, or vehicle" providing prepared foods or beverages that are ready -to -eat. Then, starting in July 2013, AB 2138 would further require that the composting or recycling rate for such food containers and bags be at 25 AB 2138 also has provisions which define compostable and recyclable packaging. The three other bills, while involving single use plastic bags, do not address the issue of a ban: AB 68 (Brownley) and AB 87 (Davis) impose a $0.25 fee for each single use plastic bag used by customer at point of sale at grocery stores and pharmacies; and AB 1441 (Calderon) sets a $0.001 fee on manufacturers per bag and a 50% recycling goal. Because the Committee recommendation was for City Council support of State legislation to ban single use plastic bags and foam food containers, any Council approved support would be focused on AB 1998 and AB 2138. Staff recommends this approach because the adoption of a State -wide ban, particularly on single use plastic bags, would eliminate the need for the City to expend funds to prepare an EIR. An EIR is otherwise the current standard required for a plastic bag ban under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as applied by the Alameda County Superior Court and other California courts. In addition, support for a State -wide approach is also preferred because uniformity of requirements would likely have fewer impacts on the local business community as alternative bags or containers would become more widely available, and thus potentially cost less. Climate Action Plan EIR: While part of the Committee's motion staff does not recommend that the Climate Action Plan's (CAP) solid waste assessment and related environmental impact report (EIR) be expanded to include a study of the effects of a potential ban on single use plastic bags or foam food containers. The CAP and its EIR need to be prepared on a strict time schedule, and including a study of these bans is likely to require significant consultant resources, public hearings, and preparation time. This is particularly true in the event that a State -wide ban is not adopted, or the California Supreme Court rules that a complete EIR is required. Because of that significant impact on the timing of the preparation of the CAP's EIR, staff does not recommend that this portion of the Committee's recommendation be adopted at this time. While staff did discuss this option with the Committee and thought that such Page 4 of 5