The Redondo Beach City Council Tuesday resumed discussion of its approach to working with power plant owner AES to find profitable but non-industrial uses for the company’s Harbor Drive property. As is typically the case when AES discussion is on the agenda, dozens of Redondo Beach residents turned out to the meeting to make public comment.
Many of them, this time, were concerned that the city was spending taxpayers’ money to become an “intervenor,” or to participate in the process by which AES’ proposal to re-power is permitted (or not).
As promised, Mayor Mike Gin brought before the council four recommendations.
The first was to establish and formalize a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with AES, outlining possible land use alternatives that might satisfy both the city and the property owner. An MOU, Gin pointed out, should contain the valuation of the property – a figure AES Southland Vice President Eric Pendergraft said his team is not prepared to present at this point.
“It’s unusual for a private corporation to sort of let their hair down and open up their drawers, if you will…but…if we can get a sufficient return on alternative uses on the AES site, [Pendergraft] could probably convince his management corporation that they don’t need to build a power plant,” Gin said.
The mayor acknowledged that AES, “like any other business,” has to offer its shareholders a return on their investment, and said the MOU must take that into account.
Second, he recommended the council hire a land-use economist to be its advocate, and to value the Harbor Drive property and forecast revenues alternative uses could potentially generate.
Third, Gin said he supports the concept of a citizens’ committee convened to devise alternative and profit-generating uses for the property, but believes its assembly should be deferred until after the city and AES sign an MOU that contains “specific guidelines” and economic insight.
“Those benchmarks are going to set the tone for discussions of this committee,” Gin said.
Gin’s fourth recommendation was that the council support a moratorium on construction at the site.
“In general I believe a needs assessment should be done and if a moratorium is our option for forcing that needs assessment to be done…I think it’s important to do,” Gin said.
Prerequisites to imposing a moratorium, he said, should include a signed MOU and the creation of a citizens’ committee.
Councilman Steve Aspel suggested that the new council – elected in a May 14 runoff – should be choosing the members of a citizens’ committee.
“This is going to cost us a fortune – it’s not like we just snap our fingers and make that power plant go away. If we do what some people want us to do in this city – and I don’t think it’s a majority, but I think it’s some people – we’re going to break the bank trying to do this, so I think the union groups should be involved… Until we can…pay our employees and just pay for what we have, we can’t go spending money on all this pie in the sky stuff,” Aspel said, eliciting applause from several members of the public gallery.
“That’s my feelings on it. A lot of this can wait and I’m not going to support a moratorium.”
Councilman Bill Brand countered that the city would be irresponsible to “sit back and do nothing and not spend any money and let AES do whatever they want.”
Redondo Beach resident John Armstrong rejected the idea of hiring a land-use economics consultant, and asked the council not to spend taxpayers’ money on fighting the AES proposal.
“Every one of you gentlemen sitting there relies on a capitalist system for your money… I have no doubt you would not want your investment portfolio limited to a certain amount of money because a small group in a small little city decided you should make that much,” he said, addressing the council.
President of the Police Officers’ Association, Scot Martin, expressed disappointment that the council had agreed to spend $200,000 on challenging the AES application, but was meanwhile not “progressing” its negotiations with his union.
Carlos Rubio of California Teamsters, a labor representation group, asked the council to consider its employees before spending money on the power plant issue.
“What they’re seeing is there’s other priorities except them… just be considerate,” he said.
One woman asked the council to “be mindful” about its expenditures “because we are super mindful about what we spend at home,” she said.
Gin defended the cost of being an intervenor as necessary to ensure a greater economic return for the city in the future.
“While the concept maybe of spending some money on this effort may seem senseless, I look at it as really an investment in our future or our community’s future,” Gin said, noting that if the council and AES can agree to construct, for example, a hotel on that property, it will generate tax revenue for decades to come.
Pendergraft said Tuesday night that AES will support an MOU provided it does not “put our CEC [California Energy Commission] process at risk.” His company intends to engage its own land-use economics adviser, obtain a property valuation, and seek corporate approval to share that figure publicly – a process that will likely take three months, he said.
He said he was not prepared Tuesday night to support the idea of a community taskforce.
After nearly three hours of discussion, the council passed a motion to hire a land-use economist and draft an MOU for AES to consider. It will re-visit the discussion of a moratorium in 60 days. No decision was made regarding the formation of a citizens’ committee, but the council agreed informally to defer that conversation until a new council takes the dais.
