Explanation:

a) Conflict with general plan, and b) Conflict with plans/policies: The proposed action is considered to present less than significant impacts in these areas because, according to information provided in the PEA (page 3-33), the general plans of the jurisdictions along the pipeline route do not contain specific policies pertaining to oil transportation or pipeline development. Several jurisdictions have also indicated concern over the proposed pipeline and/or its route: letters are attached to the PEA from the Cities of Cerritos, Bellflower, Carson, Long Beach, and Artesia. Detailed review of general plans and local policies will be conducted for the EIR.

c) Incompatible with existing land uses:

The determination of the level of impact for pipeline construction and pipeline operation is different; the operational impacts are considered to be potentially significant, but construction impacts are found to be less than significant.

Operation impacts: Operational effects of the proposed project on existing land uses are considered to be potentially significant because there is a potential safety risk associated with operation of the pipeline. The project area includes densely populated areas and a variety of sensitive land uses. While much of the land use adjacent to the pipeline ROW is commercial and industrial, there are also numerous sensitive land uses along the ROW, including both single-family and multi-family residential uses, schools, and churches. These areas could be contaminated by a product spill or could be subjected to fire and thermal radiation effects. Normal operation of the pipeline is expected to have little or no impact on surrounding land uses, since the pipeline will be buried and will not generate noise or odors. Periodic repair and maintenance activities along the ROW will have minor effects on surrounding land uses due to noise from equipment and vehicle operation. Accidental rupture of the pipeline and subsequent product spills could occur, even though the pipeline will be buried. Potential rupture of the pipeline could result from corrosion, earthquakes, or third party disturbance in the ROW. In the event of an oil spill in populated areas, two significant adverse consequences could occur: 1) contamination of land and property from spilled oil; and/or 2) injury due to fire resulting from ignition of the products. Although the probability is low that either of these impacts will occur, the consequences of such an event would be potentially significant and the impacts need to be evaluated in an EIR.

Construction impacts: Construction impacts on existing land uses are considered to be less than significant because construction disturbances are short-term and temporary and therefore will not have any long-term impacts on the sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Project construction activities may result in daily disturbances of dust, equipment emissions, possible odors, noise, traffic congestion, limited parking, access detours, and utility disruption to land uses adjacent to the pipeline route. However, the PEA incorporates numerous measures to reduce short-term construction impacts (described as LU-1 to LU-5, page 3-36), and it is assumed that the proposed project includes implementation of these measures. Development of the proposed project may result in intensification of the land use by adding to existing infrastructure along the pipeline ROW, but the overall impact is still considered to be less than significant.

d) Affect agricultural operations: While construction could temporarily disrupt the existing strawberry field located at the western end of the pipeline route just east of Compton Creek, this impact is considered less than significant due to its very short-term nature.

e) Disrupt/divide established community: Pipeline construction will cause short-term disruption of the communities along the pipeline route, but due to the short-term nature of the impact, it is considered to be less than significant.

II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:	Potentially Significant Impact	Portentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?

Explanation:

a) Exceed population projects, b) Induce substantial growth, and c) Displace existing housing: No impacts on population and housing are expected. Construction of the proposed project activities has very little potential for socioeconomic impacts because it involves temporary and short-term construction activities that will most likely be performed by workers already residing within the Los Angeles region. The proposed project’s provision of petroleum products to the Inland Empire, Nevada, and Arizona is not considered to be a growth-inducing activity, since the products will be provided to respond to growing or existing demand in those areas (see PEA Section 1.2, pages 1-1 to 1-2).

Back to Initial Study Table of Conents