Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - PACIFIC PIPELINE PROJ (2)AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: June 8, 1993 City Manager Approval ' Item to be presNa4rrls by Lynn SUBJECT: Comment Letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Pipeline Project (California Public Utilities Commission Application (A)91-10- 013) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Pacific Pipeline System Inc. is proposing to construct a twenty -Inch diameter pipeline, 171 miles long, with a capacity of 130,000 barrels per day, from the Santa Barbara oil terminal facilities to the Los Angeles refineries at Wilmington and EI Segundo. The proposed pipeline route would be within the Southern PaciticTransportation Company railroad right-of-way and other existing road rights-of- way. A major portion of the pipeline would parallel the Santa Clara River from Ventura to Castaic Junction; from Castaic Junction, it would parallel the Interstate 5 (1-5) Freeway to Burbank. The pipeline is not within the Incorporated area of the City of Santa Clarita, and does not cross any City boundary. The proposed pipeline may pose several potential Impacts to the City of Santa Clarita, primarily by Increasing the potential for pipeline rupture and consequent oil spillage. Although the pipeline would be outside City limits, generally west of 1-5, the Valley's topography Indicates that rupture and spill of the pipeline along 1-5 could drain back Into the City at five major locations. The entire Santa Clarita Valley is within the watershed of the Santa Clara River. Spills or ruptures of this proposed pipeline would Impact the Santa Clara River and adjacent oak woodlands. Damage to habitat supporting the Unarmored Threespine Stickeiback and Least Bell's Vireo would likely occur In the event of a spill. During periods of river flow, a spill Into the Santa Clara River would result in uncontrolled dispersion of oil downstream. Additionally, spills adjacent to roadways may disrupt traffic for extended periods.- Finally, volatile components in the oil could be released into the atmosphere and degrade ambient air quality. Soil and ground water contamination would also accompany a pipeline spill. The Draft EIR prepared for this project has been reviewed by staff, and a comment letter has been prepared for submittal to the California Public Utilities Commission. Based on this review, staff has determined that the Draft EIR should provide more detail concerning specific potential impacts that the proposed pipeline may have on the residents and resources of the City of Santa Clarita. Overall, staff agrees with the Draft EIR conclusion that the No Project alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed pipeline. The No Project alternative would allow the transport of Santa Barbara crude oil to Los Angeles refineries via existing pipelines without Increasing the existing risk of rupture or spill to the City of Santa Clarita. H Agenda Item; '7 Pacific Pipeline Project June 8, 1993 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Review the attached project description and maps, adopt Resolution No. 93-76, and direct staff to transmit the attached comment letter prepared In response to the Draft EIR for this project. 1) Project description and pipeline location maps 2) Comment letter on the proposed project and Draft EIR 3) Resolution No. 93.76 DMW:MJC adv "\erpxpnmie EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The discovery of significant reserves of crude oil in the Santa Barbara Channel has intensified the need for oil transportation facilities. The oil produced offshore Santa Barbara County and processed in the approved consolidated facilities along the Gaviota coast,requires transportation to refining centers for further processing and final distribution to consumers. It is an established policy of the County of Santa Barbara, and generally shared by state regulatory agencies, that pipelines are, overall, environmentally preferred over the use of tankers. If pipelines with available capacities for the Santa Barbara offshore crude exist, their use takes precedence over use of alternative transportation modes, including tankers. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the environmental setting and consequences for the construction and operation of the proposed Pacific Pipeline. The pipeline would provide crude oil transportation from Santa Barbara County to Los Angeles area refineries. This document was prepared under the direction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)• The CPUC is the designated "lead agency" for the project, meaning that it will be responsible for certifying this EIR and will be the first public agency to take action on permit applications for the project. Other local, state, and federal agencies will require permits for the project and will use this EIR to evaluate the environmental issues associated with the proposed pipeline. This document reflects comments made by agencies and the general public during the public scoping period. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pacific Pipeline System Inc. (PPSI) has recently applied to the CPUC and is in the process of applying to the Counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles for permits to construct and operate a 171 - mile pipeline from Santa Barbara County to the Wilmington and El Segundo refinery destinations. The pipeline route is shown in Figure ES -1. The pipeline would be onshore, buried in the Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad right-of-way. It would have a capacity of 130,000 barrels per day (BPD) and would require the following major components: • A pump station at the initiation of the pipeline adjacent to the Gaviota Marine Terminal; • A connector pipeline to the Ian Flores Canyon Consolidated Oil and Gas Facility and a pump station within the boundaries of the Las Flores Canyon facility; • A pump station at Rincon Mountain in Ventura County • A pump station in Ventura County in the rural area of Keith; • A pressure reduction station in Sylmar; and • Receiving stations at each of the refinery destinations. All of the proposed pumps would be electrically -driven. The pipeline would be operated from a central control facility located in Ventura County, and would be equipped with sophisticated communication system, including fiber optics and satellite dishes. The pipeline would also be equipped with 43 block valves that could be shut down from the control center upon detecting any anamolies. 04-UP3 ES -1 A SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WMob ALLAMERACAN pump l' ALTERNATIVE Exxon swwa L.,Fl.�Cyaa PLWV Swu� k . .. ... Omima JQ�, 0� Seine soemx Santa Ba -baa EXISTING chaahl/ PIPELINE Su M1SW SOUTHERNALTERMATIVE' lYad N 35 10 W-�-E - 0 5 �10 SCYe in Mime S I .. 1—i elplt. 041691 VENTURA COUNTY MTRE-A AITEA.DWE PW PACIFIC OCEAN Popm pl,lmpto --------- AlmlPIMIRaiW(.) Vicinity Map ASA. Lu Apert ct. 0 LOS ANGELES I� ALTERMWE S COUNTY xsaws%. ... va" BUOmJ P.W. <) . .... .. . . ...... .... 0�z Los Angeles i .... ... . ...... %, ALTEAWDW 1, ALAMEDA EAST -- BRANCH ALIGNMENT FJS.gundo �T. Rffmly Figure ES -1 T.x,oa Proposed and W11.1n,91.. Alternative R.A..'y Pipeline Routes Vicinity Map P–Po— by Aspen C.A,.nmentalGrouj) ES -3 Part Hueneme POTREROA z ALT. �'`.. Castaic VENTURA COUNTY -� 'u n c tion Santa Paula , Y PROPOSED 3 Middle Point PACIFIC OCEAN N W—( —E .S WM Pasini prAph" Map 1. SOUTHERN ROUTE Map 2 ALTERNATIVE POTRERO Map 6 )yap 7 t$ ALT. rpark Map 8 18 ./ I is, Mao 9 Malibu Point Dume 0 5 10 ----- Alternative Pipeline Route(s) Scale in Miles •••••••••• Proposed Pipeline Route v J APPENDIX: ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Alternative Routes Key Map• Santa LOS ANGELES ;larita COUNTY «All! et v Santa Monica SANTA FE AVE ALT. Appendix B Key Map for Southern Route, Potrero, Potrero A, and Santa Fe Ave. Alternatives Prepared by Aspen Environmental Group SANTA BARBARA ..... COUNTY Gaviota i ALL AMERICAN V E N T U RA Pump ALTERNATIVE Exxon Las Flores Canyon Station Pump Station COUNTY Goleta Castaic Gaviota 101 Montecitc, piru Junction Fillmore Santa Santa POTRERO Carpinteria Barbara Paula w� OZ LTERNATI?VOE7 PROPOSED ROUTE ;0' 3, J. Ventura Santa B,?, -b,2,, Channel San Miguel Island Santa Rosa Island N W- -E S WM Pasini ErAhi.. 04-26-93 0 5 10 15 20 mmmmmmczzzzimmmmmgz= Scale in Miles EXISTING PIPELINE SOUTHERN ALTERNATIVE Santa Cruz Island PACIFIC A.c.pa Island OCEAN Proposed Pipeline Route --------- Alternative Pipeline Route(s) Valley POTRERO A ALTERNATIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vicinity Map LOS ANGELES COUNTY Granada -'*,V.,, San Fernando Thousand Oaks ..... ... <1 Los ELSEGUNDO BRANCH Chevron, El Segundo Refinery Burbank : — Pasadena SANTA FE AVE. ALTERNATIVE ALAMEDA EAST— ALIGNMENT Compton Beach Figure ES -1 Texaco Proposed and Wilmington Alternative Refinery Pipeline Routes Vicinity Map ES -3 Prepared by Aspen Environmental Group Santa KEIT rrrrrrrr Slsquoc Pipeline �•�•• All American Pipeline --- FCPL #63 —••—••• Texaco Pipeline �••� FCPL #90 ...... Shipping Traffic Lane 04-x6-93 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lake N Tahoe W-( E � S 0 20 4-0' so so ioo Scale in Miles .a 1 Mobil M•7O Pipeline •••••••••• Proposed Pacific Pipeline o Posed Cajon Pipeline ® California Coastal Waters ES -5 FCPL To Salton Sea Proposed Project and .All Pipeline .Alternatives Praparod by Aspen Environmental Group City of Santa Clarita Jan Heldt Mayor George Pederson MayorPro-Tem Carl Boyer Councilmember JoAnne Darcy Councilmember Jill Klajic Councilmember 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259.8125 June 9, 1993 Ms. Martha J. Sullivan California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 3207 San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Pacific Pipeline Project Dear Ms. Sullivan: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR prepared for this project. We understand that the Pacific Pipeline Project would provide an additional means to transport the Increased production of Santa Barbara offshore crude oil to refineries In Los Angeles. This proposed pipeline is 171 miles long, and has a capacity of 130,000 barrels per day. The Draft EIR generally addresses many' relevant Issue areas, considering the size, scope, and regional nature of the project. Our concerns are primarily focused upon the potential Impacts to the City of Santa Clarita, its residents, and resources. The City of Santa Clarita Is concerned with several environmental Issues associated with this project. We note that the proposed pipeline Is to be primarily located within the Southern Pacific Transportation Company rail road right-of-way, or closely aligned with other existing rights-of-way. Approximately forty-five miles of the pipeline would be In, or adjacent to, the Santa Clara River. The proposed pipeline Is located parallel to the City's western boundary, along Interstate 5 (1.5), from Castalc Junction to the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14). It Is our desire to preserve natural resources, and protect endangered fauna and flora species by providing protection of the environmental setting and habitat through the location of land uses and the use of sensitive design. To this end, we encourage the underground placement of utility transmission lines, and consolidation of utility facilities. We recognize that, under certain circumstances, the above -ground placement of this pipeline will facilitate maintenance and avoid trenching in sensitive habitat areas. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan designates the Santa Clara River as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA), worthy of protection and preservation. Much of the oak woodland habitat west of 1-51s also designated by Los Angeles County as an SEA. The entire river and adjacent oak woodlands are ecological systems supporting wildlife productivity and diversity. On a regional scale, we endorse the preservation of wildlife corridors for plants, animals, birds, and fish. The EIR Indicated that "An oil spill In one of the tributaries of the upper Santa Clara River or at the Santa Clara River crossing could also resuft In regionally significant (Class 1) Impacts because It. could affect an essential habitat of the state-and-federally- Martha J. Sullivan Pacific Pipeline Project Page 2 4 AN listed -as -endangered Unannored Threespine Stickleback." Any development adjacent to or within any riparian or oak woodland habitat should provide adequate setbacks to preserve these resources. Retention of open space Is also essential for public safety as well as hillside, riparian, and oak tree preservation. We generally support the goals and efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding habitat protection. We also seek to serve and protect the groundwater resources of the Santa Clarita Valley and adjacent drainage areas in a manner which will provide for the long-term sustained yield of groundwater for domestic, commercial, Industrlal; and agricultural uses. The Draft EIR also Identif lea system safety as a critical Issue for this project. We promote the "safe" transport of hazardous materials within designated transportation routes along key arterials. However, higher density residential development is typically located along major transportation corridors (particularly 1.5). Located within the 1-5 corridor, the proposed pipeline poses significant safety risks to people and property. Through our General Plan,.we also seek to ensure seismic design for linear transmission systems that adequately protect the public. What specific measures have been Included to ensure that this pipeline will not be Impacted by seismic events which may potentially occur In the Santa Clarita Valley? Soil Instability, steep slopes, and liquefaction potential are all significant constraints to this development. The Draft EIR should analyze project grading for sensitivity to erosion hazards and potential slope failure. The Draft EIR should also Include a map showing existing commercial and residential development, with existing roadway systems, In relation to the proposed pipeline. The April 6, 1993, rupture of the Four Comers Pipeline (ARCO), located approximately two miles north of Fort Tejon, made evident to us the Impacts associated with this type of project. Approximately 150,000 gallons of: oil were spilled In a period of approximately two hours. Northbound lanes of IS were closed between Castalc and the Grapevine (approx. 35 miles) for almost fourteen hours. Pressure sensitive monitoring equipment at Fort Tejon apparently did not detect the rupture. Rain -swollen Grapevine Creek carried the oil more than seven miles before emergency response teams could construct a levee to contain the spill. Immediate negative Impacts to air quality, traffic; wildlife (and habitat), surface drainage, groundwater, and soils were experienced In this area. The potential for this type of accident currently exists In the City of Santa Clarita due to the presence of the Four Corners Pipeline and the Mobile M-70 Pipeline, and would be Intensified with the addition of the Pacific Pipeline project. The topographic maps provided In the Draft EIR Indicate that ruptures along the pipeline could encroach Into the resources protected by the City of Santa Clarita, and would ultimately draln into the Santa Clara River at the following locations: Rye Canyon Road, Magic Mountain Parkway, McBean Parkway, Pico Canyon Road, and Calgrove Boulevard. As Illustrated by the Fort Tejon oil spill, ruptures along any portion of the pipeline adjacent to the 1-5 freeway may disrupt traffic movements for an extended period of time. This would Impact traffic flow patterns throughout the City, and the Santa Clarita Valley. The Draft EIR should examine long-term maintenance Impacts in greater detail. Scour, erosion, and sedimentation are constant wear -and -tear factors requiring Martha J. Sullivan Pacific Pipeline Project Page 3 r protection measures which may Impact the geology, hydrology, and wildlife habitat of the Santa Clara River. We are specifically concerned regarding the placement of man-made structures (rip -rap, concrete/gunnite channel siding, buttressing, etc.) which may be required In the river In the future for pipeline support or protection. Given the existing technology available, the EIR should provide further examination of retro -fitting existing pipelines to accommodate the transport of Santa Barbara crude oil. Because these lines already exist, an opportunity to enhance system safety and efficiency deserves further consideration. We agree with the conclusion of the Draft EIR, that the environmentally superior project alternative is the No Project alternative. It is Important to eliminate all risks associated with the surface transport of oil wherever possible. We appreciate that the proposed project has certain safety features which older existing pipelines may not have. However, we are also cognizant that the proposed Pacific Pipeline would be accompanied by the Increased probability of a spill or rupture In the future. As described, the No Project alternative includes the use of existing pipelines to allow the transportation of oil, without the Introduction of new risks Into the environment. It may be preferable, from an environmental perspective, to Improve the efficiency and reliability (reducing the probability of a spill or rupture) of the existing system of pipelines. We respectfully request that you note our concerns for Inclusion In the Final Environmental Impact Report, and deny the project as currently proposed. Sincerely, Lynn M. Harris Deputy City Manager Community Development LMH:WC RESOLUTION NO. 93-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, OPPOSING THE PROPOSED 171 MILE 130,000 BARREL PER DAY PACIFIC PIPELINE PROJECT (APPLICATION NO. 91-10.013), PARTIALLY LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ADJACENT TO THE SANTA CLARA RIVER AND THE GOLDEN STATE FREEWAY, AND SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH 92013018); THAT THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission will be considering the request of Pacific Pipeline System Inc. to construct a 171 mile pipeline to transport the anticipated increased production of offshore crude oil from Santa. Barbara terminal facilities to Los Angeles area refineries; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for this projectidentifies areas of substantial environmental Impact, Including Impacts to the Santa Clara River, safety, traffic; air quality, biology, hydrology, geology, and aesthetics; and WHEREAS, the proposed pipeline would be located primarily within the Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad right-of-way and other existing rights-of-way, and would run parallel to U.S. Hlghway 101 from Santa Barbara south to Ventura, from Ventura through the Santa Clara River easterly to Castaic Junction, then continue south along the Golden State Freeway (1-5) from Castalc Junction to Long Beach and EI Segundo refinery facilities; and WHEREAS, that portion of the proposed pipeline route located from the Santa Clara River to the Junction of the 1.5 Freeway and the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14), directly exposes the City of Santa Clarlta to the risks and Impacts associated with this project; and WHEREAS, the topography, drainage, watershed, and meteorological conditions of the Santa Clarlta Valley Indicate that a pipeline rupture or spill would likely be transmitted to the air, water, and ground surface resources within the City of Santa Clarita; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara River and the oak woodland immediately west of 1-5 are designated as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) by the City of Santa Clarlta and County of Los Angeles, respectively; and WHEREAS, the proposed pipeline may have a substantial impact upon the City of Santa Clarlta and the Santa Clarita Valley, Including the roadway network, emergency services, oak woodland habitat, riparian habitat, and rare, endangered, and sensitive species dependant upon these habitats; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report Identifies the No Project alternative as environmentally superior to the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the No Project alternative would allow the transport of Santa Barbara crude oil through existing pipelines which currently traverse the City of Santa Clarlta, the option of retrofitting existing pipeline facilities to accommodate the project and Improve system safety should be explored by the project proponent; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to provide formal comment and testimony to the California Public Utilities Commission on the proposed project and Draft Environmental Impact Report, to be part of the official record; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City's General Plan encourages the consolidation of utility Ilnes; seismic design of linear transmission systems which adequately protect the public; underground placement of utility lines; the preservation of wildlife corridors for plants, animals, birds, and fish to support production and diversity; and retention of open space for public safety and welfare, and hillside, riparian, and oak tree preservation. SECTION 2. The City finds that the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project is the No Project alternative. The No Project alternative warrants further analysis to determine potential environmental impacts, and opportunities to improve system safety and efficiency of the existing pipelines for the transport of crude oil from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles. SECTION 3. The City finds that other pipeline routes Identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report as alternatives to the proposed project, which do not traverse the Santa Clarlta Valley, would also eliminate the potential Impacts of this project to the residents and resources of the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 4. The City finds that, although some of the Impacts of this project may be adequately mitigated by measures identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, project Impacts to Significant Ecological Areas, biology, air quality, geology, hydrology, safety, traffic, and aesthetics, have not been adequately addressed with respect to their specific Impacts upon the City of Santa Ciarfta. These concerns have been addressed in the City's comment letter to the California Public Utilities Commission on the project and Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated June 9, 1993, and Incorporated herein by reference as Attachment 1. The City requests that the California Public Utilities Commission address these concerns In the Draft Environmental Impact Report and deny the project as proposed. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoptlon of this Resolution and certify this record to by a full and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, . DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,1993 by the following vote of Council• AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk MJC earanceyscp Mx