HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 4285 1994-02-14
RESOLUTION NUMBER ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCll. OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING CUP NO.
92-7, A REQUEST FOR THE INSTITUTION OF
OPERATIONS AT OIL SEPARATION FACILITIES
ON A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 199-010-10 (UNOCAL, 99 MARINA
DRIVE)
.1
THE CITY COUNCll. OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On July 28, 1992, Union Oil Company of California ("the
applicant" or "UNOCAL") filed an application for CUP 92-7 with the City of Seal Beach.
The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to institute the operation of three additional
oilIwater sepmation facilities at Assessor's Parcel Number 199-010-10, City of Seal Beach
("the project"). Assessor's Parcel Number 199-010-10 ("Subject Property") is currently
developed with: Marina Park, a community park; oil extraction separation facilities, currently
operated by Exxon; and non-operational oil extraction sepmation facilities that provide a
buffer between the park and the Exxon facilities. The applicant proposed to upgrade and
reactivate the existing, non-operational oil extraction separation facilities.
Section 2. A duly noticed public hearing to consider the application was
held before the Planning Commission on July 21, 1993, and continued to October 20, 1993.
Evidence, both written and oral, was submitted for and against the project. The Planning I
Commission approved the application.
Section 3. An appeal of the Commission's decision was timely filed, and
the City Council held a noticed continued public hearing on January 10, 1994. The City
Council considered all oral and written testimony and evidence presented at the time of the
public hearing, including the staff reports. The Applicant was represented at the hearing by
David Stanger, UNOCAL's Manager of Offshore Facilities, and Robert Province. Twenty-
one persons, including professionals in the health, legal, real estate appraisal, scientifiC,
geotechnical fields spoke against the application.
Section 4. Based upon the evidence presented at the public hearings, and
pursuant to .. 28-2502, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of the City's~, the City Council hereby
finds:
1. A conditional use permit can only be granted if the proposed use
is compatible with the General Plan and is compatible with, mther than detrimental to,
surrounding uses and the community in general. The proposed use is not compatible with
surrounding uses and with the community in general. The subject property is located
immediately adjacent to Marina Park, and to the residential community of Bridgeport. As
proposed, the project would be within 100 feet of homes within Riverbeach, to the west
across First Street. Oil separation facilities would adversely impact the adjoining residential
and recreational areas due to noise, light, air quality and risk of upset impacts caused by the I
proposed project. Approval of the application would conflict with adjoining and nearby
residential and recreational uses because of the project's proximity to those residential and
recreational uses.
2. The proposed use is located in an area which was once primarily
industrial in nature, and which has been changing to primarily residential uses over the past
25 years. Indeed, major residential developments have been built in close proximity to the
subject PlUperty since 1983, the last year the existing facilities were in operation. The
subject property is now bounded on all sides by residential communities and a recreation
I
I
I
Resolution Number ~.2Ar
.
facility. The heavy industrial use of oil separation facilities would adversely impact the
changing character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed use will adversely affect the General Plan and is
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Genem1 Plan. The Genem1 Plan designates
land uses surrounding the subject ploperty for a variety of medium- to high-density
residential uses and recreation uses. Operation of a separation facility would be incompatible
with those established surrounding land uses, placing additional oil separation facilities near
residences. Further. the project would be inconsistent with the Seismic Safety element of
the General Plan.
4. Evidence presented, including the testimony of a licensed real
estate appraiser, indicated that the proliferation of oil extIaction uses on the property' will
adversely impact residential propelty values in the area. This impact on l).Ope1ly values
could impair the City's ability to develop residential uses consistent with the General Plan.
The Planning Commission has previously instructed staff to initiate and proceed with
required environmental review procedures to consider a General Plan Amendment to change
the current land use designation on the subject property from Oil ExtIaction to Low Density
Resi~tial.
S. The site is currently developed with operating oil extIaCtion
facilities. Exxon Corporation, the landowner, maintains an operating separation facility
immediately adjacent to the proposed facility. The land area encompassing the subject
facility is leased by UNOCAL from EXXON.
6. The City has and will continue to encourage the applicant to
propose a different use on the ptopetl)' which would be consistent with applicable zoning,
with the General Plan, with surrounding uses and with the community in general. The City
Council finds that other economically viable uses are possible on the property.
7. The site is not physically suitable for the type of use ptoposed,
and is likely to cause serious public health problems as demonstrated by the following facts
of record:
(a) Testimony presented indicates that the use could cause the
following occurrences in an upset situation: 1) anyone within 27 yards
of the facility may feel pain within fifteen to thirty seconds and may
suffer second degree bums after thirty seConds in the case of a dike
fire; 2) anyone within 43 yards of the facility may feel pain within
fifteen to thirty seconds and may suffer second degree bums after thirty
seconds in the case of an uncontained fire; 3) anyone within 98 yards
of the facility may be exposed to flying fragments or debris in the case
of an explosion, and; 4) anyone within a 38 yard circumference of a
gas cloud generated by a release of certain products or from a fire at
the facility may be within an "ImlJlecJilltP.ly Dangerous to Life Zone" as
defined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
(b) The risk to the general public from onshme proceS$i'lg facilities
can be reduced by locating the facility away from vulnerable areas of
the community. The most impo.tant aspect with regard to risk to the
public is the location of the site. If the site is located in an area
sufficiently isolated from the public, 110 matter what happens at the
facility, the public is not at risk. In addition, if the onshme processing
facility is located near other potentially hazardous facilities, such as the
adjoining EXXON onshore processing facility, an accident may spread
to the other hazard footprints sllllOUllding the second facility.
(c) A methane/sewer gas occurrence was deteaed on January 4,
1994, in the residential community of Bridgeport, adjacent to the
subject property. The detected levels weJe approaching a dangerously
explosive level, resulting in street closures in the surrounding
Resolution Number ~;?l1~
residential area. Local residents were restricted from entering or
driving in the area until the sewer lines could be flushed and the gas
lowered to a safe level. To allow the establishment of an additional oil
separation facility would increase the risk: of explosion within a heavily
populated area of the community.
(d) The health risk: to the population of the Los Angeles Basin from
exposure to toxic air contaminants is currently high. According to
preliminary AD 2588 Phase I and n data for 1989 and 1990, the Basin,
which covers 8.5" of the geographic area of the state and 45" of the I
population, reported 51" of the toxic emissions in the state. Ambient
concentrations of toxic air contaminants in the Basin are consistently
higher than state average concentrations and higher than concentrations
in some other UIban an:as of the United States. It has been estimated
that about 200 cancer cases per year in the Basin are attributable to
carcinogenic air contaminants.
The health risks are esp<'Cilllly high for persons residing or
working in close proximity to stationary soun:es emitting high levels of
air toxins. AD 2588 data indicates that there could be as many as 220
facilities in the Basin each posing cancer risks to individuals which
exceed a risk of 100 in one million and about 4,000 facilities each
posing cancer risks exceeding 10 in one million. In addition, persons
in many an:as of the Basin may experience an increased risk: for
noncancer health effects such as respiratory illness, l~luductive
toxicity and neurological effects due to exposure to toxic air
contaminants. The health risks to particular individuals may be greater
than the risks associated with single facilities if the individual resides or
works near more than one stationary source emitting high levels of air
toxins. The facilities that pose high cancer or noncancer health risks
consist of a wide variety of sources ranging from large industrial I
operations to small commercial operations. Testimony indicates that
the project would increase air quality-related health risks in the area.
(e) Recent studies conducted by Harvard University, which tracked
the health of more than 8,000 adults in six U.S. communities, found
that people in the most polluted city had a 26 percent higher risk: of
death than people in the least polluted city, after allowing for major
risks such as smoking. All six cities were in compliance with federal
air pollution standards. The South Coast Air Basin, which the City of
Seal Beach is located within, has the worst air pollution problem in the
United States. The Harvard University study suggests that thousands of
people may be dying annually from pollution which is within 1egaI
limits. Until this issue can be clarified, the approval of an additional
oil separation facility, with unknown health impacts based on the
Harvard University study, is premature.
(I) Testimony by a doctor and others indicated that when dealing
with health risk: assessments, three major factors must be considered: 1)
acute or short-term risk: of exposure; 2) chronic or long-term exposure;
and, 3) dose of toxic air contaminant. Health risk: USf'ssments cannot
accurately account for the synergistic effect of multiple, chronic I
exposures to toxic air contaminants. Until these impacts can be
adequately evaluated, the approval of an additional oU separation
facility, with health impacts unknown based on the current state of the
art in risk: IIl'sessment, is premature.
(g) Environmental Assessment 92-8, prepared by staff for the project
indicates that the facility would emit significant, measurable amounts of
toxic air contaminants, including reactive organic gas, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and various particulates.
I
I
I
Resolution Number ~)(~
~
8. Environmental Assessment 92-8 and testimony presented
indicated that soils investigations on the subject p10perty have concluded that the pro~l)'
consists of gravel and silty sand fill from two to three feet deep, with fine grain sands
containing abundant shell fragments beneath the silt to approximately six feet, at which level
the water table begins. Due, in part to the historical water courses of the San Gabriel
River, maps of the subject [llUJ'"'it)' show that the p1ope.ly' was under water as late as 1913.
The NewportlIng1ewood earthquake fault runs through the City, approximately 0.9 mile
north of the subject property. The location, proximity to an active fault, and high water
table on the site create a high potential for liquefaction in the event of an earthquake.
Recent earthquakes in Southern and Northern California have presented &n1Phic illustrations
of the destructive consequences of liquefaction in residential areas. liquefaction potential is
high when the water table is less than ten feet. Given the apparent groundwater depth on the
subject property at approximately six' feet, the potential for liquefaction in a residential zone
is an unacceptable-risk to the health and safety of the surrounding neighborhood.
9. The applicant p.uposes to use existing pipeline from the subject
property to offshore drilling facilities. The location of the existing pipe1ine is underneath 1st
Street, and runs adjacent to residential areas. An earthquake might rupture the pipe1ine,
thereby exposing residents to hazards.
10. Based upon the foregoing, approving the project as proposed
would be prejudicial to the public health, safety, and general welfare. An additional oil
separation facility in such close proximity to residential and rec:reational areas could inflict
injury, not only upon current residents of the surrounding area, but also users of the
adjoining rec:reation and clay care facilities. Due to the conflicting evidence as to whether
such risks can be mitiglltP1l, the Council will not subject the surrounding community to the
unknown risk of an upset condition. The lives the Council seeks to save and the injuries it
strives to prevent involve not only the existing residents of Seal Beach, but PluSpective
purchasers of homes in the adjoining area and users of the rec:reation and clay care facilities
immediately adjacent to the subject site.
Section S. Based upon the foregoing and all of the evidence
presented to and/or considered by the Council at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the City
Council hereby grants the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, and denies the
requested conditional use permit application for additional oil extraction facilities on the
subject propoaty.
Section 6. The City encourages the applicant to work with the
owner and the City to develop an appropriate use for the subject plope.ly'. Further, the
applicant has indicated that it would prefer to perform oil separation operations off shore.
The City Council hereby directs the City staff to assist applicant in its efforts to obtain all
necessary state approvals for such off shore oil separation activities.
Section 7. The time within which judicial review, if available, of
this decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedures and Section 1-13 of the Code of the City of Seal RP.!I"h, unless a shorter time is
provided by other applicable law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE~ the City Co
City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the ,,/. - day
, 1994, by the following vo
AYES:
Councilmem
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmem
Resolution Number ~~~
~dA/~r'
MAY
ATIEST:
,/J
I.
~....~....,,\,\\\
.:#'" t SEA.L 8 111I
#, 0 ......... ~-f I".
l-~ ..toaPo"..;.. ~ Of
(; "...+ '0.' -s.
I "0
..~....
. .
. '-
O. .....
~~_. .:-
_. o.
? .1".. ." ~
. 0 ~ . ""'5"
~~Q;".:'" 21. \4:.<~Off
.'1... C': ........ ,.....;
.'" 0(1 Nl'f . -.'
\\\W JIll
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
}
}
}
S5
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, Calif~ hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number ~ on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted bY:.t':~ty Council of ~ty of Seal Beach, at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 7. - day of ~./U.UIr994.
I
I
I
I
I
Resolution Number ~~~
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P,)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the County afore-
said; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or Inter-
ested In the above-entitled matter,
I am the principal clerk of the printer
of the SEAL BEACH SUN, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and
published weeklv In the CIty of SUI
Beach. County of Orange and which
newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of
Orange, State of California, under the
date of 2124n5. Case Number A82583;
that the notice of which the annexed
Is a printed copy (set In type not
smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
Issue of said newspaper and not In
any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
J:LlcL..
,
all In the year 19..i3...
This space for for the County Clerk's
Filing Stamp
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Proof of Publication of
.~_..._.. -. .~-.....-..- .....,lI.
.-..:... ~'~~u~. ,....-........prIar
. :~. 'ft,... .. __at............
<1:" ,,-' HEAAItG ' .............-.
'IlOlICEB_III'GIIIEN.. r "",,'o.'_IIO_UC
. '..CIr-....CIIr..- " .1lII'lIIIlIIlYWILL.~
. ""..1IDId -............. CIII_R '.. ,.. 'lIlE
. ..--.... arYOGI'IICIl WlU.aR.rTAIlE
'..............., 10, ,-. ~ AIlIIOIt'lO CCIIIllIIUE 'lIlE
......~..CllrCluiol_. _UC~'IOoIMlIARr
21' EWIIl-.- _ '.. ,...
~ =-......_..~.: ...__11III........
i: .--'CIPPl'llI.a .1..'...---..-.
'. ....~..&"'IIIAIIPIIDVALOII' . ~ ........ 'JllUcIIIIIII9"
. -.cA'IIlIlWllll '" ................-...-
. .,. 'CCItIIIIIlClNI .'. I ..-.-....- ,
Ii ,...:~ . . - ...'. . -.....__.......
g ..iA1iva-'-;:.......eN .: ........-.-~
It CllIIIlIIIOoW.U.PEIIIIIT"" ....-...In_
i lIIua_a_llAL_a_ -'. .....--...
--:".... -,~ CIIr..-_...........
~--,,~.. ". ."........-.., .
~ .. __.. ... ", ..1lI1ED~__..NIl.........
twIUI....., rr. . .. t.
....a. "I' ...~_..,. ..:
It '" ~""'~.",__II " ;' =:r.:..Y,!ot.~CIoIII .
,....-.,.__..CUP.:-'.A.. '.-Il.........CI2".
0'__ ~ .at . . ~
Ii .....................,-
D ....Mi..,J4............
b' PI. . .-._..
: MortnaDrlla. _....,.
& (UNClC:AL_~ 111Io
r _....d I ......._
) PIadDnn_._II_
) ____. 1.5__....
CIIr" _.... 1ha.........
r .......... ... ....... ............
, ... -........ pIpoIIna
r----..oI
- - PIoIIDnn_.
..--.,. ,
~ .~~ 1........."
'................--
6,--....-,.
t.'" ~ ._................
Ii>_hll-.r_
aEn._.._~~ A.........
J"". --.-. L.......
~f<I="1I oJ -....."._
-/ .. ......-...-
,__ ...11........
~,DI;umeI.a101 ......_.
~---. CllrHIUlt Elglllh
, '......- - 1ha..-od
I~... .,._. ....... ...~
'. ....iIooh..... fl!parllng"""
11.;11..._...._...
,,~.....- ~CIIr ,-
".-' ..,.-,...
o:Codo_ "'11IO,_.
Jh....
........ ...... I, .
G:.tr ..:.. . d n
$!f;';!V'--'
. .-.~~..
{......: 0.,;" Eo;;.;, " -
ii.......... ...'
~~~~!.:..'!!
-.._....CIr
Dated at Seal Beach. California,
this z.... day of iUtc-1..... ,19..i3...
G-~p-
PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY:
THE SUN NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
P.O. Box 755
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(310)430-7555