Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 18 SD PIPELINE EIR 12-21-87  i~ CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: DECEIMIBER 21, 1987 ~ TO~' FROM: i SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTIqENT SAN DIEGO PIPELINE - EIR (EIR 87-2/SCH t87080Sll) RECOMMENDED ACTION · It is recommended that the City Council certify Final Environmental Impact Report 87-2, by the adoption of Resolution No. 87-153. PRO,1ECT DESCRIPTION The San Diego Pipeline Company (SDPC) is proposing to replace an existing 10" refined petroleum pipeline, currently l located with a private easement along an abandoned railroad right-of-way with 16" and 10" pipelines. The 10" pipeline will not be activated at this time. These lines are to be located within the public right-of-way and generally will follow a route as follows: Southerly along Newport Avenue from a point near the intersection of Newport Avenue and Irvtne Boulevard to Bryan Avenue, then easterly along Bryan Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road then southerly to Moulton Parkway and into existing pipeline facilities. The project includes the abandonment of an existing pipeline currently on private property (residential backyards) and reversion of the current pipeline easement to the original property owners (Atchison, Topeka, Santa Fe Railroad Company and the Irivne Company). With placement of relocated pipeline in the public right-of-way, the proposed project requires City Council approval of a Franchise Agreement. The Franchise Agreement would grant the Company rights of installation, operation and maintenance of the underground petroleum pipeline through Tustin. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City Council at its meeting on April 6, 1987 directed staff to initiate Franchise negotiations as requested by the San Diego Pipeline Company. Since City Council action on any Franchise Agreement is a discretionary project, conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required. Upon completion of an Environmental Intttial Study by staff, later refined by contract consultants to the City, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared in conjunction with the project. City Counci 1 Report San Diego Pipel.ine - EIR December 21, 1987 Page two Preparation of the EIR began with staff conducting a public meeting on August 18, 1987 held to collect citizen concerns about the project and focus on the proposed scope of the EIR. Although attended byI only 18 people, notice of the meeting was mailed to approximately 400 owners of properties which immediately abut the existing and proposed routes. After receipt of comments from a variety of agencies, the firm of LSA completed a Draft EIR for the proposed pPoject on September 23, 1987 which circulated to all required State and reviewing agencies. The review period for the Draft EIR ended on November 20, 1987. Prior to responding to any written comments on the draft EIR and City Council action on the-final EIR, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to receive additional comments on the Draft EIR and to provide an opportunity for the Commission and-residents input in the environmental process. The EIR is now in final form and is being submitted to the City Council for certification. The comments from State Agencies, Planning Commissioners and the public have been addressed and incorporated into the report. {See response to comments - EIR, item 13.) Most of the significant revisions and improvements were related to the Abandonment Program for the existing pipeline, (see'EIR, item 4). The final EIR is attached for your review. Once the final EIR is certified, the CEQA requirements related to the environmental assessment of project are completed and the City Council's action on the Franchise Agreement can proceed. Among other functions, the Franchise Agreement can be seen as a tool for implementation and/or enforcement of EIR mitigation measures and achievement of the goals of CEQA. SIJI~ARY OF EIR i The EIR evaluated the following Impact categories' ° Land use 0 ° Biology ° Geol ogy/topography ° ° Soils ° ° Public utilities ° Noise Air Quality Traffi c/circulati on Pipeline safety/risk assessment Pipeline abandonment program In addition to evaluating specific impacts of the proposed' project, the EIR also evaluated a number of reasonable alternatives to the project including an alternative route and a "no project" alternative. With the exception of the impact categories of Pipeline Safety/Risk Assessment and Traffic and Circulation, impacts associated with above listed impact Corn rnunity Development Department San Diego Pfpeltne - E1~R December 21, 1987 Page three categories have been .reduced to a level of insignificance with recommended ' adoption and incorporation of identified mitigation measures. There may likely remain impacts associated with the potential for spills and short term minor traffic disruptions on the City's streets during construction. There are no mitigating measures that can completely avoid the short term impacts on traffic and circulation, nor remove the possibility of a potential pipeline spill. Pursuant to Section 15g03 of-CEQA, projects may be approved even if potential unavoidable impacts exist provided the approving jurisdiction adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. Information contained in the Final EIR indicates that the proposed project will improve existing conditions which could support such a statement by the City Council. Improvements .to existing conditions include: 1. The new pipeline will be constructed, operated and maintai-ned according to an approved Franchise Agreement and in conformance with all EIR mitigation measures. Currently, the existing pipeline is on an easement granted by the Railroad Company to the San Diego Pipeline Company, where the City has little or no regulatory power. In fact, should be the pipeline company's desire, it is their right to expand the system within the existing easement. No permits would be necessary, and no City discretionary actions would .be required, and conditions improving the system could-not be imposed. 2. The major portion of proposed pipeline right-of-way will be located ~nder the public right-of-way instead of on private property, in particular within many residential backyards as currently exists. In case o.f emergency, the access to the pipeline is currently blocked, and the damaging effects would be much greater. e The proposed pipeline will be constructed, maintained and operated according to most updated Federal, State and local standards, procedures and regulations. The installation of state of the art leak detection devices, computerized shutdown systems, and a corrosion protection system will significantly increase system safety over that of the existing 20 year old pipeline.. Furthermore, EIR mitigation measures increase project safety and recommend leak detention testing to' ensure that all possibilities of soil and water contamination related to the existing pipeline be cleared before the SDPC quit claims the easements. 4. The proposed pipeline route would also eliminate the nejd for existing overhead pipe crossing at Interstate 5 southerly of Browning Avenue, on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad bridge. CONCLUSTON It is recommended that Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report by the Community Development Department City Counci 1 Report San Diego P1pelfne - December 21, 1987 Page four EIR .,. approval of Resolution No. Overriding Considerations. 87-153, which includes Exhibit A - Statement of Pbtrizta Materass~, ' Planner PM'CAS'ts Attachments- Final EIR Resolution .No. 87-153 ff' Christine A. Shtngleton,,. r''" Director of Community Development Community Developmen~ Departmen~ RESOLUTION NO. 87-153, 3 4 5 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN FINDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 87-2) PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAN DIEGO PIPELINE PROJECT IS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO MITIGATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-2. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows' A. That the San Diego Pipeline project (hereinafter "project") has been proposed and is subject to a Franchise Agreement between the City of Tustin and the San Diego Pipeline Company. B. That it is the policy of the State of California and the City of Tustin, in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, as amended (California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.) that the City shall not approve a project unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid significant effects; meaning all impacts, have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially lessened and any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable based on Section 15093 of CEQA. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report for the project (hereinafter "EIR 87-2") has been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. O. That the Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn held a public hearing to receive public comment on Draft EIR 87-2 at a regular meeting on October 26, 1987, and the City has responded to comments received during the review period on EIR 87-2. E. That the Tusttn City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, and the State guidelines for implementation. F. That CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Resolution No. 87-153' Page two Ge That the Ctty Council has considered all tmpacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives Identified in the E[R, and has found that the project ts the environmentally supertor alternatlve and that significant effects are substantially mi ti gated. II. The City Counctl of the City of Tustin hereby certifies the Ftnal Environmental Impact Report 87-2 based upon the findings as follows- A. That the Final Environmental Impact Report is complete and complies with California Environmental Quality Act. B. That the "CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts" herein incorporated as Exhibit A is adequate and complete, and states written findings for each significant effect, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, at a regularly adjourned meeting on the day of , 198 . Ri chard B. Edgar Mayor, Mary Wynn, Ct ty Clerk CEOA FINOINGS AND STAT£NENT OF FACTS BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines ( Gui del i nes ) provi de' (a) "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). The City of Tustin proposes to approve the Franchise Agreement to construct a pipeline in the City of Tustin. Because the project has the potential to bring about impacts on the environment, the City caused an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared. This EIR has found certain significant effects which may occur at a result of the project. The EIR also includes mitigation for each effect which substantially lessens the effect on the environment. However, after such mitigation, there remain certain potentially adverse effects on the environment. · The City Council determines that there are environmental and health and safety considerations which make infeasible project alternatives in the EIR. Further, the City Council determines the Final EIR to be complete and to have been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and does hereby set forth the following findings- FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF iN ii i THE P~.6,]ECT Land Use Impacts - construction of' the project as proposed will result in short term impacts associated with construction activity, which would temporarily limit access, parking and general circulation along the proposed route. CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts page two Other temporary impacts will occur resulting in increased air pollutants noise levels and traffic congestion. ' Findin.gs - Mitigation measures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Final Environmental Impact Report' (FEIR) are being attached to the project. These measures will lessen the effects on the surrounding land uses to a non-significant level. _Impacts - There are potential environmental effects on drainage channels and downstream surface and subsurface water courses and water bodies, should there be a rupture in the pipeline. In addition, certain possible effects from construction, including channel and downstream siltation from erosion of spill material, may occur. . Finding~s- The FEIR requires controlled construction methods be utilized to reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion problems. Mitigation also requires that c,o,~ingency planning include provisions for total containment of any rupture or ill" that.could occur after the pipeline is operational. This measure, combined with leak detection, and shutdown provisions, will substantially reduce the potential for any adverse effects on the environment. See mitigation measures 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the FEIR. The resulting conditions are such as to substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to a level of nonstgnificance, as identified in the FEIR. Geel ogy, Topography and Sot 1 s _Find_ing~s - No significant impacts are anticipated. Noise _Impacts - Noise impacts are limited to short-term construction related effects. Nine p6tentially sensitive receptors were identified in the FEIR. Findings - Mitigation measures 10 and 11 are required during construction periods. Mitigation measure 10 requires daytime construction, Monday through Friday, and a controlled work program which must be authorized by the Director of Public Works. Noise Sensitive land uses within the area are protected by Mitigation measure 11. The resulting effect of the construction activity after mitigation will be substantially reduced. The short-term effects of construction activity noise will be reduced to a level of non-significance. Any residual effects will be limited to single events and will be of a short-term annoyance nature. CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts page three Att Ouallty Impacts - Project construction will result in short-term increases in dust and exhaust emissions from construction activity. Release of pipeline contaminants into the atmosphere could occur should the pipeline leak. (Please see System Safety/Risk Assessment, Section 3.8 for a discussion on the potential for a leak to occur.) Findings -The mitigation measures, numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 will reduce the impacts to a level of non-significance. Measures such as dust suppression during construction, traffic rerouting, and construction management shall substantially reduce airborne contaminants, and thereby reduce all effects on air quality to a level of non-significance. For effects related to pipeline safety, please refer to the discussion of System Safety and Risk Assessment of the Findings. Traffic and Circulation Impacts - Short-term traffic impacts resulting from pipeline construction removal may occur. Traffic disruption and reduced accessibility to some businesses, residences, public facilities and emergency routes may occur. Findings -Mitigation measures 19 through 28 are required to prescribe project construction times, plan for pedestrian access and require additional notification of affected private property owners along the construction route, in order to reduce the effects identified in the FEIR. After mitigation, however, there remain some residual short-term effects on the environment resulting from disruption of traffic circulation and access during construction. No long-term effects are expected due to the requirement that all street public right-of-way be returned to preconstructton conditions. There are short-term effects after mitigation that result in traffic disruption, blocked access and pedestrian access reduction as detailed in Section 3.6, Traffic and Circulation. All feasible mitigation measures have been attached to the project to' reduce significant impacts. Because the project is proposed in the street right-of-way, these impacts are infeasible to mitigate. The no project alternative, which would leave the 25 year old pipeline in private backyards, and possibly lead to a pipeline replacement project in these backyards is considered to cause greater impacts than the proposed project. The 'proposed project is considered environmentally superior to the no project al ternati ye. CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts page four Publlc Utllities- Servtce ,, Impacts - The proposed ptpeltne construction plan may affect the City's emergency evacuation route and may affect existtng utilities and other subsurface servtces. o- The construction plans to be reviewed by the Director of Public Works authorlzation of work permtts are requtred with attached mitigation measure number 29 requtrfng alternate emergency evacuation routes and mitigation measures tn Sections 3.6.4 and 3.8.4, the likelihood of any disruption longer than a temporary reconnectton of a utiltty, ts very remote and non-significant. $~stem Safety/Risk Assessment Impacts - There ts, after all prudent system safety and risk reduction actions are taken, a slight possibility of a pipeline rupture and/or leak, causing adverse effects on the natural and built environment. Findings - Mitigation measures 30, 31, 32 and 33 will add to pipeline safety and substantially reduce ongoing risks associated with the operation of the pipeline. However, there remains a small risk of pipeline rupture or leak.' Contingency plans in case this occurs will additionally reduce effects on the environment should a rupture or leak occur. There remains a very small residual risk of environmental impacts associated with any pipeline rupture or leak after all mi ti gation measures are considered. The City Council acknowledges the level of risk associated with the project and finds that, due to the existence of the San Diego Pipeline in its current location, the No Project Alternative poses substantially high risks due to its location in private backyards, where access is severly hampered, and due to the age and condition of the existing pipeline. Other alternative including alternative locations and truck transport, have been studied. Among the alternatives reported in the FEIR, and considering the potential significant effects of the No Project Alternative, the proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative. Additional mitigation measures to reduce pipeline safety to a level of non-significance are considered infeasible. The level of risk associated with the project is very small, as reported in EIR Section 3.8 System Safety/Risk Assessment. To reduce the potential risk even further would require additional measures not included in federal or state regulations. Pipeline safety is the responsibility of the State Fire Marshall, who is charged with enforcing State and Federal safety regulations, as detailed in Section 3.8. It is infeasible, and outside the jurisdiction of the City of Tustin, to impose additional pipeline safety measures beyond what are prescribed in the FEIR. CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts page fi.ve The FEIR describes certain risks to pipeline rupture and leakage, and describes the possible effects of such a rupture. It is noted that the proposed pipeline would be located under public streets and right-of-way which-are owned and controlled by the City. As described in the FEIR, this is a far superior location than the current location of the pipeline. The risk of rupture of the existing 25 year old pipeline is considered greater in the uncontrolled portions of the pipeline where it traverses private backyards, side yards of condominiums and hard to access right-of-way. This aspect of greater assumed risk for the existing pipeline, which recently ruptured spilling 550,000 gallons of gasoline, is an overriding consideration affecting the approval of the proposed project. Abandonment,, Pro~lram ~ - Pipeline abandonment alternatives are discussed in the FEIR in a separate section. As part of the proposed project, pipeline abandonment is described as having minimal effects on the environment as follows: selective removal and nitrogen packing may have minimal construction related effects at points where the pipeline will be capped and/or removed. Ftndln~s - Mitigation aimed at partial removal of the pipeline in selected areas and Icapping/nitrogen packing for the existing pipeline will assure minimal effects on surrounding properties. Abandonment in-place for areas where the existing pipeline occurs in private backyard and other sensitive areas further reduces any potential environmental effects. These measures substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR.