Back

PROPOSAL:

Consider Board Review of Permits for Multi-Year, Multi-Phase Projects

SYNOPSIS:

On November 15, 1997, at the informational hearing on the Los Angeles Export Terminal, the Board directed staff to develop a policy for Board review for Multi-Year, Multi-Phase Projects. A workshop was held on January 8, 1998 and an alternative policy was proposed.

COMMITTEE:

Stationary Source, January 23, 1998, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Stationary Source Committee has recommended that the Board continue this item to allow further discussion by the Committee. Staff concurs with this recommendation, and will report back to the Board following action by the Committee.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Acting Executive Officer

Background

On November 15, 1997, the Board held an Informational Hearing on the Los Angeles Export Terminal (LAXT) Project. At the close of the hearing, the Board directed staff to place on the December Board agenda the consideration of a Board policy for the review of permits for multi-year, multi-phase projects.

At the December Board meeting, staff defined applicable projects and proposed three policy mechanisms:

(1) Monthly Board letter to track permit status;

(2) Procedure for Stationary Source Committee review of permit specifics; and

(3) Procedure for scheduling a Regulation XII hearing.

In addition, a 60-day continuance was recommended so that staff could hold a public workshop on the proposed policy. (See Attachment 1 for the December proposal.)

The workshop was held on January 8, 1998. Without exception, all commenting parties voiced concerns with the December proposal. The main views expressed were that:

• The permitting process should not be lengthened, made more uncertain, or more costly;

• Large projects will also be Title V projects, with additional public review requirements;

• The potential risk of significant changes in requirements after the permit is issued will chill economic investment in the manufacturing base of the economy;

• actual changes that result in additional capital expenditures risk project failure; and

• CEQA already provides a process for public review.

Based on the workshop, an alternative proposal has been developed which incorporates flagging multi-year, multi-phase AQMD permitting projects on the existing monthly CEQA Board Letter. (See Attachment 2 for the January proposal.)

Staff concurs that the CEQA process is a good starting point for providing the Board with project information. A board member could then be provided with additional status reports on a specific project upon request.

Proposal

The Stationary Source Committee reviewed the two alternatives. In addition, they discussed the length of the approval on a Permit to Construct. The Committee asked staff to return with more information on the life of a Building Permit in various jurisdictions in the region. Committee members recommended to continue the item to allow further discussion. Staff concurs with this recommendation.

Attachments

1. Alternative 1 - December Proposal

2. Alternative 2 - January Proposal

/ / /