Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 87-1539 10 20 21 2~ 28 RESOLUTION NO. 87-153 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. 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 ts the policy of the State of California and the City of Tustin, in accordance with the provision of the Calltfornia 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. C. 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 Tustin 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 Gui delines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an £IR 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. 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 lO 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26; 27 28 Resolution No. 87-153 Page .two · .. II. Ge That the Ctty Counctl has consid, ered all impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives Identified fn the £IR, and has o-found that the project ts the environmentally superior alternative and that significant effects are substantially mi ti ga ted. The City Council of the City of Tusttn hereby certifies the Final 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 i~ adequate and complete, and state~ written findings for each significant effect, accompanied by a ~tatemnt of fact~ ~upporttng each finding° PASSED, AD. OPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council California, at a regularly adjourned meeting on the 21st day of December, 1987. ~ecembe_r_ . ~, 198~7. of the City of Tustin, ~__21st__ __ -_ day of Mary Richard-' B' -Edgar' ~ Mayor, CEQA F~ND~NGS AND STATEHENT OF FACTS .... i i i i l. - ...... 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 ~n, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIRo (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 Tusttn 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 (EIb) 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 THE PRojECT - - -- ..... ' ...... --- ' .......... Land Use .... , · ~Impa_c_ts - 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. . ..:.:":.:i':,..:.'~*;:~'::'.?...*:'~:'~:...":.'.,..;i!:":~?'.*~:*,~ :~?;~:.:~:~!.~;.:.*~.?;~:...~?.%~:...~:~!;~:~:~:~::~:i;~?~.~i~~!~:?~;:~~*?..~::~:?::..L~;~:~...~.~`.:~.:.:~:~'-.-'I?::.~.,''-~.:?'~,.:.'':~:.?.i.¥-/I*-''.''I?:~::.~?::;:'~~.*' '..~.: '-;" ' .... '-- ~:~. ~,: .' · · '. ': .: ....... · ,..'r'~ ;~', ....... ~:.~..'..~ ~,~-~'~..'~:'~.~'.~:~.'.=';?.~;..: ~-'..:"-":.*J'~:t':: ~t.,.'~.~,".~:r~.~, ~ *~..,~.'~!;:~:c . :-'~.':...~, ~. ' . ~.:, ~.x.*,'~. -',?,",~, "~ .--*~:~:~'. ~ -'..'".'. ". ~.~...:'c. ':.~..~-~,'-: ..... '.':.~. "~ '"~ -¥,,'., , ' -, .......· .'. '~.. ', .' · ':: ...... F;~::T. ~ ~ :~:~:~:~..z,~.~:~?:~;~.::~::~?~:~::~.`~:~?:~?~:? .?.'~e~)":~'~ ~i~:~.'.~:~?~:,'~.:,'~J::~,"-:~:".~:'~:~: ~F~"~"~:~'' :~,:i,?-:.~, ~..'~:::~.'?~ ,~,:,~'.~' .".~.... ~t ~:~ ~, ..~,..' r .....".'", :'C .'"".'.. '.' "~'~ :~' ~'t ....... .-' ~ ..~:: ?~:?. :~?.f~;¥~:.~:~j.~:~:?C[~f::~.,~::~:~.:;~/..~..~.~:~C?~:~:~:~ :.~.?~~.~.~::~:~.m.m:;~F~,~:::.m?~.:C.~.. ~:~:~;:j~:..,.~m:m~L~:t::~ .~.~.~. :~:..:~.~ ~.~:.~:: ,::: ..... '~ m.~:..:,.:.~:.~mm..,.:.m.... ',~'m,:. :' .:~' :'':?' '?',.: ~. 'm'': : ~'m''',' mm., m' :' m. '~'m''m '.~.l '.~ ~' ~.'x':~' ~..':,: ,~ -~ ~'~...:~F~'~4 ..... ~,?.-'~";?~:",.~* '-~c; ~.:,.i~,'.~?~:.'.,~.,Lr?~,~.-,:-~:~=;.~..,'~,.,~".~',.~.~ '~ -:~'~'4~;,~,.:~.~v~...~'~"x.':~::'-.".~,.'),~.'4g'.' '..'. '~'* ..... ~r.,;-'" ,'~ ::.'. ,'~ ¥ .~", ..:.',. '-.-.. :- t -"~'"';',,. : :. -* ,- *~' . ~'..' .", '. '.' "..,.',,.: ..... ~.,'~'.:~..F?~':,.:: ..... ~"~ -'~,~'.'~-*~:'r:c~.~-~ ,~:'-'~-"-'~-'"-.'~-",'~:~:': LC'~ J'~:t'~..-"""~J.:~,,'':' "~:t~.~.'~=~,= "'~"~-~':)-,'~~:*i. ~'f:L'.:' ":.:~ ~':~, ~.x~*.'-(-'.....',~..:'~%.~.:~:':.-....,.t : 'L'."t'.F,.'~'.~-. · -Y ..,',.' · . .... .* "' .: ::. ~ ~'~.~..':' ..:'.:?...:.','~..,~, ..... ,~.~.~-..)~.?'-',*,~'~::,-~,,~'.~:':~.?:-~ ..... ~"~.~~,.?'~:-~,'~ ~.~t.~:.,~*~-'.?:,.-~¥:.,''~ :,.~,~'.~'~':-.~-:'~.:~:.,.,,',.7~.:~ ,.:.'~.~.,, :~:,~'*,. .....~. .... .~ ,,:, ~'."..,, .,:.......~.,?.' :';,.~.. ~ ,-- '.'.., ',. -t , ~., CEOA Fi ndJ ngs and Statement of Facts page ~o Other temporary impacts Will occur resulting in increased air pollutants, noise levels and traffic congestion. ' Fi~ndt_ngs- 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. Bt_ology 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 additioh, certain possible effects from construction, including channel and downstream siltation from erosion of spill material, may occur. Fi~n~di~ng_s - The FEIR requires controlled construction' methods be utilized to reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion problems. Mitigation also requires that contingency planning include provisions for total containment of any rupture or "spill" 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 measuPes 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. GeologY, Top.o. graphy and Sot~ 1 s ~ ~F!ndtngs - No significant impacts are anticipated. Noise Impac~ts-- Noise impacts are limited to short-term construction related effects. Nine potentially 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 efter mitigation will be substantially reduced. The short-term effects of construction activity noise will be r'educed 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 Atr_Qual!ty Imp_a_cts - Project construction will result in exhaust emissions from construction activity. short-term increases in dust and Release of pipeline contaminants into the atmosphere could pipeline leak. {Please see System Safety/Risk Assessment, discussion on the potential for a leak to occur.) occur should the Section 3.8 for a Ftndi~ngs- 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 ,,, , _Impa~cts - Short-term removal may occur. businesses, residences, traffic impacts resulting from pipeline construction Traffic disruption and reduced accessibility to some public facilities and emergency routes may occur. F_indi~ngs- Mitigation measures 19 through 28 are required construction times, plan for pedestrian access and notification of affected private property owners along the in order to reduce the effects identified in the FEIR. to prescribe project require additional construction route, After mitigation, however, there remain some residual short-term effects on the environment resulting from disrupt(on of traffic circulation and access during construction. No long-term effects are expected due to the requirement that all street.publi c right-of-way be returned to preconstruction 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. Alll 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 a 1 terna t~.ve. .i CEQA Findtngs and Statement of Facts page four Publlc Utilities -Servtce ~Impa~c~ts - The proposed pipeline construction plan-may affect emergency evacuation route and may affect existing utilities subsurface servtces. the City's and other Ftnd~ings - The construction plans to be reviewed by the Director of Public Works prior to authorization of work permits are required with attached mitigation measure number 29 requiring alternate emergency evacuation routes and mitigation measures in Sections 3.6.4 and 3.8.4, the likelihood of any disruption longer than a temporary reconnection of a utility, is very remote and non-significant. Sys_tem SafetT/Rt sk_Assessmen_t I..mpacts- There is, after all prudent system safety and are taken, a slight possibility of a pipeline rupture adverse effects on the natural and built environment. risk reduction actions and/or leak, causing Ftndi~ng_s - 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 al 1 mi ti gati on 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. Add non the Ass mea Pes and and itional mitigation measures to reduce pipeline safety to a level of -significance are considered infeasible. The level of risk associated with project is very small, as reported in EIR Section 3.8 System Safety/Risk essment. To reduce the potential risk even further would require additional sures not included in federal or state regulations. Pipeline safety is the ponsibility of the State Fire Marshall, who is charged wi th enforcing State Federal safety regulations, as detailed in Section 3.8. It is infeasible, outside the jurisdiction of the City of Tustin, to impose additional pipeline-safety measures beyond what are prescribed in the FEIR. CE(~A Findings and Statement of Facts page. f.i 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 pipelfne 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. _A. ba,n, donment_ Program Impacts - Pipeline abandonment alternatives are discussed in the FEIR in a separate section. As part of the proposed pro~ect, pipeline abandonment is described as having minimal effects on the environment as follows' selective removal and nitrogen packing may have minima~ construction related effects at points where the pipeline will be capped and/or removed. Findings - Mitigation aimed at partial removal of the pipeline in selected areas and capping/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 F. EIR. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 87-153 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting ~ the City Council held on the '21st day of December, 1987, b3/ the following vote- ' "' AYES · COUNCILPERSONS' Edgar, Hoesterey, NOES : COUNCILPERSONS. None ABSENT- COUNCILPERSONS- None Kel 1 y, Kennedy, Prescott MARY E. {~¢fNN, Cit(~ Clerk ...... City of~Fustin, California