The Redondo Beach City Council unanimously passed a resolution at its Tuesday night meeting, which opposes AES’ proposal to re-power its Harbor Drive plant and commits the council to working with the energy company to find alternative uses for its property.
The council also voted to appropriate an additional $200,000 from the general fund to pay for the city’s participation in the California Energy Commission (CEC) permitting process as an intervenor. (The city initially set aside $175,000 for costs associated with finding inadequacies in AES’ application, and in that fund just $60,000 remains.)
The council made two other related directives on Tuesday: that Mayor Mike Gin will bring before the council at its next meeting a proposal for a task force dedicated to finding alternative uses for the AES site, and that City Attorney Mike Webb will present on May 7 the text for a moratorium on construction at the power plant site for the council to consider.
The mention of a resolution, which was previously brought before the council before but never passed, sparked nearly three hours of discussion Tuesday night.
Ultimately, the council approved a resolution opposing the presence of the power plant on the waterfront, but voted to amend the language so it would convey its desire to work with AES to explore alternative uses for the site. As a result, the final resolution included the following addendum: “[The] City of Redondo Beach is committed to working collaboratively with the property owner [AES] to attempt to find economically viable alternative land uses to provide incentives for uses other than a power plant.”
Councilmember Steve Diels advocated opening the resolution with that amendment, noting his preference “all along” has been to “work with AES on how to find an exit strategy.”
“I would like to send a message to the CEC that says we would like to work with the property owner,” Diels said.
AES Southland President Eric Pendergraft also said he would support the resolution if its title and text conveyed the council’s desire to “work together” with AES to find a mutually beneficial solution.
Over a dozen citizens spoke to the resolution. Some were upset because they perceived it as contradictory to the “will of the people” expressed at the ballot box last month. One woman, visibly agitated, cautioned the council not to spend taxpayers’ money on engaging with the CEC permitting process and to let the defeat of Measure A speak for itself. Others were ardently supportive of the resolution, and still others criticized the council for to-ing and fro-ing over its language, accusing the members on the dais of “inaction.”
A colorful performance from power plant opponent Al Meissner, who danced and shouted to make the point that the council was “dancing around the issue,” prompted councilmember Steve Aspel to ask for respect from the audience.
“I’m not going to tolerate this and, mayor, had I been in charge right now, the police would’ve taken that man out in cuffs,” he said.
There was extensive discussion, too, of the proposed moratorium on construction at the AES site. Webb explained the moratorium would need to be “supported by findings that it is needed to protect the public from a current or immediate threat.”
NoPowerPlant.com supporter Lezlie Campeggi, who spoke several times, told the council it had “no strength” to rely on if it refused to pass a moratorium. Kay Gagnon accused the council of playing into AES’ palm.
“The art of the deal is having cards to play and I believe your inaction and lack of action is leaving you without cards to play,” she said.
Diane O’Leary opposed the resolution on behalf of the board of the chamber of commerce.
“Although the chamber would prefer not to have a power plant unless it is deemed necessary through a needs assessment, we oppose the resolution and possible building moratorium at the AES site. In the wake of a contentious election, we hope the will of the people will be supported,” she said.
Pendergraft said AES does not object to the CEC performing a needs analysis, which he believes will “confirm the need for the facility,” but is not supportive of a moratorium on its property.
“This appears to be needing to move at light speed now, all of a sudden…but we’re going to need likely a couple months,” he said, noting his company has yet to settle on a property valuation to bring before the council, which will prove a critical point in future discussions.
