AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.2.A. - Page 28 anticipated that by also prohibiting paper carryout bags, this alternative would significantly reduce single-use paper carryout bags within the Study Area, and further promote the shift to the use of reusable bags by retail I customers. By banning both single-use plastic and paper bags, customers I would be forced to use reusable carryout bags. This is expected to increase the number of reusable bags purchased within the Study Area. A. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the County's Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following references to "Proposed Ordinance" refer to the adoption of an individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR: CEQA requires that all alternatives considered be described, but it does not require a full analysis of alternatives that are infeasible, that do not meet the Project objectives, or that do not potentially reduce environmental impacts. Alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration for these reasons are addressed in Section 6.5 of the Draft Program EIR and are summarized below. • Additional litter removal programs, education efforts, enforcement for littering, and recycling programs for plastic bags: This alternative was rejected because it does not achieve the Ordinance's objectives, including reducing the use of paper bags and promoting a shift toward the use of reusable bags. • Ban Styrofoam (polystyrene) in addition to banning single-use plastic carryout bags: This alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinance's objectives of reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic bags or reduce any of the Proposed Ordinance's environmental effects. Environmental impacts related to polystyrene use are outside the scope and objectives of the proposed action. • Ban single-use plastic carryout bags, but not charge for paper bags at retailers in the Study Area: This alternative was rejected because it would not reduce customers' use of paper bags, which have greater impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and water quality than plastic bags on a per bag basis. In addition, this alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinance's objective of promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers to as great a degree as would occur with the Proposed Ordinance. • Ban the use of single-use plastic carryout bags by retailers (except ; restaurants), with the exception of plastic bags made with bio- � I i 11 � i i I