Don’t be fooled, Hermosa
Dear ER:
E & B Oil Drilling recently placed full-page ads in this paper touting the benefits of industrializing our coastal areas. Here are some of the more informative “Did you know” things about E & B and their massive oil drilling test project:
-DID YOU KNOW that E & B Oil plans to drill 35 oil well sites on 1.2 acres of land, making Hermosa Beach the home of the most densely drilled oil exploration site in the country?
-DID YOU KNOW that E&B’s Steve Layton and Francesco Galesi negotiated with our city council to carry a mere $1 million dollars of liability insurance over the 30-year life of the project? This policy is to protect the city residents and government from the extraordinarily high risks associated with oil drilling and exploration. These risks include chemical, electrical, and mechanical fires, intense gas pressure explosions, blowouts with fire (like the one BP had in the Gulf of Mexico), earthquakes, oil spills, truck crashes, falling power lines, lightning, and tsunamis. Any of these events could produce claims in the $200- $500 million dollar range.
-DID YOU KNOW that E & B was formed primarily through acquisition of the bankrupt Equinox Oil Drilling of Louisiana, whose principal was Steve Layton
-DID YOU KNOW that Mr. Layton left his creditors unpaid and changed his shirt for a new one (not sure folks will understand your analogy) with the label E & B on it after a record oil spill in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana? The oil spill covered approximately 2 square miles of wetlands — that is an area larger than the entire city of Hermosa Beach!
-DID YOU KNOW that Francesco Galesi, the money behind E & B, was on the Board of Directors for MCI WorldCom and member of the audit-oversight commitee. Galesi was one of WorldCom’s longest serving Board Members when MCI Worldcom filed the second-largest bankruptcy case in United States history. Both Galesi and Layton are well versed in bankruptcy law and the shields it provides to wealthy persons and their assets. City residents should sleep well knowing they have a contract that provides one million dollars in protection and two skilled bankruptcy businessman as their new business partners. Remember, they are promising us hundreds of millions of dollars based on absolutely no additional geological surveys or studies. The former driller estimated only a fraction of the oil that Layton now claims in there. His assumptions are grounded in speculation and zero additional scientific evidence or new study or data. If one is to believe their pie in the sky estimations, we should have gone to trial, taken our chances and settled later if any damages were found by the jury. If you believe the oil company and its PR, then the city made a terrible settlement and should have bargain for much more!
-DID YOU KNOW that E & B’s principals, Galesi and Layton, did NOT sign the settlement agreement and assignment of lease with the city in their own names or the names of any established company with assets. All claims brought to this project will go a new LLC, named Hermosa Acquisition, formed just for this project. The name is very fitting because Layton and Galesi think they can buy the town with their promises of hundreds of millions. Hermosa Acquisition has no known assets. If the city is supposed to get hundreds of millions of dollars from this huge drilling project, and E & B is so sure that Hermosa Beach has billions of dollars of oil underground, then why not sign the contract with a financially sound company behind it? And, why didn’t the city make them personally liable during the settlement negotiations?
E&B has a problem with truthfulness. These people have a well-documented history of bankruptcies and environmental disasters. Are these the type of “partners” the citizens of Hermosa Beach want for the next 30+ years? Don’t be fooled. E&B has embarked on a very slick campaign to win votes and influence the community. They will say and promise anything for your support, but they will put NOTHING of relevance in writing.
This is about our health, our community, and our environment. Don’t sell them short for empty, unqualified promises. We don’t want to live Plaquemines Parish’s nightmare.
Michael Keegan
Hermosa Beach
Appropriate development
Dear ER:
I have known Bill Brand for 12 years, working alongside of him on many issues. Bill and I met when we were fighting the City’s previous large scale harbor development plan, Heart of the City. We were, and are not against development, just against OVER development.
Bill has a solid track record of protecting the quality of life of residents. His strong support of residential interests has often been at odds with the decisions of the other council member, yet Bill continued to press on for the Residents of District 2.
Bill truly is an Independent Leader that offers Balance to the strong influence of the Chamber of Commerce and the local businesses. He gives a voice to the residents in his district.
The accusations of Bill’s opponent, Michael Jackson, are truly upsetting. Don’t be misled by the slick campaign of the incoming Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. I would expect nothing less from a person with years of experience as a political lobbyist.
As evident by the recent listing of his contributors, at the City Clerk’s office, Michael Jackson is primarily supported by businesses and people living outside of our area, not by residents living in District 2.
Nadine Meissner, Chair
Residents for Appropriate Development
Redondo Beach
Greed and lies
Dear ER:
One percent of the pollution in the Los Angeles basin comes from electrical generating plants like the one in Redondo Beach. There are 40 such plants operating in the LA basin. Hence, 1/40 of 1 percent, or .00025 percent of the pollution in the LA basin comes from the AES plant in Redondo Beach.
Those in favor of Measure A rant and rave about pollution from the power plant when they live between the world’s seventh largest airport and the combined fifth largest ports not to mention three huge oil refineries and a Hyperion plant. Prevailing wind patterns consistently push the pollution from these very dirty sources over Redondo Beach where it settles on our community
Then there’s Pacific Coast Highway which boasts 40,000 cars per day. Exhaust from cars and trucks make up the large majority of pollutants in our air, but the residue from their tires and brake pads create some of the unhealthiest pollutants of all.
My question to my fellow residents who seem to be so worried about pollution, why in heavens name do you live here?
Personally, I don’t think the fight is about pollution at all. It’s about Bill Brand and Jim Light wanting a huge park and the people who live behind the plant wanting views and higher property values. Together they conjured up this ridiculous pollution argument (remember .00025 percent) to scare everyone.
Don’t give into their greed and their lies. AES keeps our lights on. Vote No On A.
Monica A. Jeffery
Redondo Beach
Zoned In
Dear ER:
Measure A, our only hope to rid us of a power plant in Redondo, isn’t a vote solely for a large park as AES misleads! Measure A’s sunset clause allows the City Council to modify the 60 percent/40 percent open/commercial zoning once Measure A passes. And, any major modification(s) still must go to a vote of the people per City Charter Article XXVII — Measure DD!
The AES-funded, No on A campaign, falsely claims there’s an alternative to Measure A to rid us of the power plant. This is simply not true. There are no plans from the City to eliminate industrial use on the property, no plans to end AES’ conditional use permit to operate a power plant. The City is “working” with AES, almost guaranteeing a new power plant here. The only way the CEC will not grant AES a license to rebuild is with strong public opposition, and a zoning change, forcing the CEC to conduct a needs analysis in order to rule against local zoning laws. Without Measure A, this can’t be accomplished in time to stop a new power plant. It’s not feasible that anyone, including the City, can change zoning prior to the CEC’s review/decision of AES’ application. That clock starts ticking next month when AES resubmits their application, addressing the CEC-defined deficiencies. The CEC’s response to the City’s report of major deficiencies in AES’ application was “thanks for sharing — noted,” but AES just has to address OUR deficiencies. The City’s “intervener” status won’t matter.
Melanie L Cohen, President
South Bay Parkland Conservancy
Good idea
Dear ER:
I hope Redondo voters all read the unbiased analysis of Measure A by the City Attorney in the sample ballot. I learned that the passage of Measure A simply means that the CEC must determine if the power plant is a necessity, before they approve it. It seems that this additional test is a good idea before we commit Redondo residents to another 50 years with a power plant. Don’t you agree?
Krista Hayes
Redondo Beach
Credibility gap
Dear ER:
Back in 2010, Redondo Beach voters approved Measure G that set the zoning standards for our waterfront that has now allowed our waterfront revitalization project to finally materialize. Or put another way, if it were not for Measure G, we would not be having the workshops and public “listening” sessions with the developer that will hopefully result in a revitalization plan we can all support and eventually utilize and enjoy once it has been completed.
It now seems odd, that those groups and individuals who opposed Measure G are now jumping on the bandwagon as though they had supported this waterfront development they once so vociferously opposed, and most noticeably among them, Councilman Bill Brand. I have a very difficult time believing that his new fondness for development of any type is sincere given the last twelve years he has spent opposing every proposal that even suggested an increase in density.
Why should we believe his sincerity is genuine today given his track record that reflects just the opposite? Could it be due to the fact that voters expressed their desire for modest zoning standards that have now led to the public discussions we are currently having with CenterCal?
Such pre-election flip-flops of this type should not be left unaccounted for by an elected official who has constantly opposed waterfront development.
Michael Jackson
Redondo Beach
Fox and chickens
Dear ER:
Not sure why there are so many Mark Burton for MB City Council signs. His main qualification, as he states, is his 31 years of public service. Most of those years he worked for the City of Los Angeles, negotiating and preparing pension and other work-related agreements with Los Angeles police and firemen. We know how well those types of agreements have served Los Angeles, which is bordering on broke. I think putting Burton on our council is like bringing in the fox to guard the chickens. And perhaps Burton would like to share with us what type of pension he receives from Los Angeles.
Karl Simon
Manhattan Beach
Love thy Neighbor
Dear ER:
When we purchased our home in southern Hermosa Beach, we knew we were buying a home near a power plant. We did not know the power plant could possibly reconstruct, spend more hours running and thereby increase annual pollution. We have two small children and they have the opportunity to go to Redondo Union High School, which is very close to the power plant. I am asking Redondo residents to do everything they can to prevent the new power plant. Please help both Hermosa and Redondo kids from breathing more pollution on an annual basis.
Kern Herschelman
Hermosa Beach
Caution: whales crossing
Dear ER:
We’ve been humpback whale watching in Hawaii for 25 years, and were shocked and dismayed to see so many people and boats so close to that whale here in Redondo, not to mention the jet skier who severely injured the creature. In Hawaii, where humpbacks birth their young every winter, there is a strictly enforced state law that everyone must stay within 100 yards, and boats must cut their motors. Everyone is aware of the law and abides by it. Clearly the South Bay needs to do a much better job educating the public about whales.
Diane Havenner
Redondo Beach
State of the Art
Dear ER:
So you look at that relic of a fifty year old pollutant plant and think to yourself, “But AES promises they will build a state of the art power plant.” Well, sure they will, there is where the profit lies. The question you should be asking yourself is what will that “state of the art” pollutant plant look like in fifty years? I dare say much like this one has looked like for the last twenty years. And what of the incredible amount of pollutants unjustifiably processed in your lungs and those of our surrounding communities simply because AES pours it out in the evening while you sleep? Priceless. In less than 50 years you will be long gone, but what of your children’s children? Do you really hate them so much as to subject them to another pollutant plant just because your parents did to you? Your parents likely did not know of all of the harmful effects of the pollutant plant; you cannot claim so. If one does not learn from his (or in this case, his parent’s) past mistakes he is destined to repeat them. So I ask of you, do you love or hate your grandchildren?
Christopher D. Boyle
Redondo Beach
Sign of the Lines
Dear ER:
When I ask supporters why they are in favor of Measure A, they usually say because it will force AES to remove their power plant and prevent them from ever building a new one, and because it will get rid of the big power lines. We also noticed Bill Brand touting how Senator Ted Lieu will get all of the overhead power lines related to the AES site removed. Reality check: Regardless of ANY local zoning or land use approved by Measure A, State energy agencies are free to do whatever they chose, and they alone will decide whether or not AES can build a new plant. Brand’s own campaign e-mails confirm this, as does the language and analysis in the sample ballot. There is already one recent case where the State’s CEC has overridden local preferences and issued permits for a new coastline power plant.
Regarding the power lines, take a close look at them and see where they go in the AES site. The really big lines take power out to the power grid, and go to the AES generating equipment. The not quite as big power lines on the north side bring power into a huge number of South Bay homes and businesses. The main receiving and electrical distribution yard for many of us is on the AES property. Without this power distribution center, many of us will indeed be without electricity.
On top of all that, AES has no ownership of this distribution center, or of these power lines and the permanent right-of-way that they sit on. With all due respect to Senator Lieu, unless there is a massive redesign and reconstruction of the electrical power delivery system in our area, these lines are not going anywhere.
Stooping to an embarrassingly low level, Measure A supporters are furthering their campaign of hate and division by demonizing the ownership of AES. Apparently having any business relationships with Chinese people is, according to them, a valid reason to support Measure A. There is no place for that type of hate in our society.
Brand and his supporters pooh-pooh the liability issues of Measure A. Why? They have attorneys who have assured us that there is no legal liability created by Measure A. Last time I checked, only courts, judges, and juries can make this determination. There were probably several attorneys who assured residents of Hermosa Beach that their retroactive ban on oil drilling was perfectly legal and without liability – and we all have seen where that one eventually landed!
AES is not perfect, and we have had our differences with them in the past, but at least they are up front about what they are proposing, and are willing to work cooperatively with the residents of the South Bay. Bill Brand and his “deceptacon” campaign seem so obsessed with forcing their will on all residents that they will apparently do anything to try and get their way.
Denise Groat
Whale Watchin’
Dear ER:
Thank you Alyssa Morin so very much for reporting with such respective insight surrendered from the unfathomable beauty of creatures indigenous to their world of instinctive intelligence.
We have a granddaughter whose name is Alyssa. Every Wednesday while she was 4 we would have a picnic at San Pedro’s Korean Bell park. Alyssa was very curious and excited by the illusive behavior of the park’s farrow cats while they gracefully maneuvered among the foliage; we at best could only snatch quick glimpses of their physical appearances. It was as if those agile cats were teasing us to coxed them out with tasty treats of our home fried chicken. But what a disappointment, for once they came out they were no longer to our conceptual eyes the quick shadowy flowing images lurking in the foliage. In their habitats they were of an imaginative brilliance. Quite possibly the wisest whale of a relationship with such majestic mammals should be our respectful acknowledgment that the ocean’s is theirs. Whale sightings may all the more become the aquatic anthem among our South Bay treasures.
Dora Perez-Meyer
Torrance
Grateful for Garden
Dear ER:
I walk by the new drought-tolerant garden at Redondo High School several times a week and have enjoyed watching it’s progress. I am even more delighted to learn that it is also ocean friendly, capturing rain runoff for irrigation and preventing it from further polluting the ocean.
Now, Redondo High School and the city needs to eliminate all fundraiser car washes. Guess where all the soapy runoff goes? The same fundraisers can and have been held at local commercial car washes. Great job by the AP Enviro Science students and teacher, as well as the other agencies involved.
Maureen Discipulo
Redondo Beach
AES and Chamber
Dear ER:
Dense residential development, including condos, increased traffic congestion, and a new, more polluting power plant that blights our coastline, depresses property values and city revenues, and damages our health: This is our likely fate if Measure A doesn’t pass, a resurrected Heart of the City, brought to you by AES and the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. AES is a “platinum” sponsor of the Chamber, and the Chamber is a mouthpiece for AES, putting the large Virginia-based corporation’s profits ahead of the well-being of small, Redondo Beach businesses they should be supporting.
I will stop spending money in the harbor area if Measure A fails, resulting in a power plant that pollutes more, condos and traffic congestion. Small, family-owned Redondo Beach businesses, you should endorse Measure A. It is in your best interests for it to pass. Redondo Beach voters, don’t be scared by AES and the Chamber. They are behind the media blitz of lies and deception meant to deceive you into voting against your best interests. Look for “Funded by donations from AES Redondo Beach” literature filling your mailbox and ads on your TV screen. If you do not want this future, vote Yes on Measure A and for the two co-authors of Measure A, Jim Light for District 1 council and Bill Brand running for re-election in District 2. We face two very different futures and Redondo voters will decide on March 5th which one South Bay residents have. Please vote Yes on A. It is the only way.
Jim Montgomery
Torrance
Lifetime supporter
Dear ER:
I was born here in the 1940’s. My parents lived in an apartment on the Redondo Beach waterfront. My mother spent 25 years in the South Bay before moving to Hawaii. My father lived here for more than 70 years and died last year at 96. As a political activist and environmentalist, my mother would be proud to see that I have circulated petitions to get rid of the power plant. I know both of them would be pleased to see me giving time and their money for the important work of getting the word out that it’s time to clean up our waterfront. Both my parents had a great concern for the planet, and I know if they could see us now, working to stop the building of a new polluting power plant (by a billion dollar company based in Virginia) and to save the natural beauty of the waterfront, they would be applauding. A power plant in our midst is an anachronism; these plants need to be built outside heavily populated areas, and with modern technology that is a possible, practical reality.
I urge Redondo Beach residents to vote YES on Measure A and to support the candidacy of Jim Light (District 1) and Bill Brand (District 2), who have worked tirelessly to research and develop this critical measure. Getting rid of the power plant is the single best thing we can do to for the future of Redondo Beach.
Linda Neal
Redondo Beach
Will and ability
Dear ER:
The voters on March 5 can create the “Will and Ability” on the City Council to develop modern day, sensible solutions to dwindling tax dollars, increased wonton crime, and unstaffed police positions.
Stephen Sammarco is well suited to assist his Council peers with such daunting issues. With data from local police departments, coupled with his Master’s Degree in public administration and finance, he is most capable of addressing these core problems. More tax dollars are easy to seek, but with his leadership such untimely efforts would not be likely. He is a professional who will help turn around Redondo Beach’s image, finances and public safety concerns.
Give him a chance; he’ll do the rest!
Steven H. Brackett
Lake Balboa
Zoning History
Dear ER:
The ballot argument against Measure A starts out: “Would you support a government that rezoned your property without your consent?… Measure A asks you to rezone private property that does not belong to the city in a way that devalues the land and limits the use for the property owner.”
This statement is almost comical when one looks at the zoning history of Redondo. In the 1960’s dense high-rise was allowed on the Esplanade. On North Redondo R-4 lots, 9 units were allowed on corners, and 8 units on interior lots. On North Redondo R-2 lots and South Redondo R-3 lots, 4 units were allowed. This zoning covered a substantial part of Redondo.
Around the 1970s, the city down-zoned a substantial part of the city. Only low rise was allowed on the Esplanade. North Redondo R-4 lots were down-zoned to only 3 units. On North Redondo R-2 lots and most South Redondo R-3 lots only 2 units were allowed. The city took half or more of the usage from the property owners without their consent. This devalued their property. The outcries from the affected property owners were not heard because the city acted in the best interest of the whole city in this down-zoning, just as Measure A does now.
In 2003, the city passed “Residential Design Guidelines” for R-1 neighborhoods. It reduced what can be built on single family lots. Again, it was passed for everyone’s good. I believe two of the signers of the “Argument Against Measure A” were on the Planning Commission or held public office when this passed.
One might ask why they are now so concerned with protecting property rights? Perhaps it’s because AES is much more powerful and important than the individual citizens of Redondo Beach.
Bill and Susie Lippert
Redondo Beach
Follow the Money
Dear ER:
Redondo Beach voters, BEWARE. The onslaught of ‘No on Measure A’ mailers are all funded by AES. Read the fine print on those and their lawn signs: “Funded by AES.” AES is also financing nasty TV commercials, and outrageously deceptive Robo Calls; looks and sounds just like the UUT ambush they did on us residents!
Two PACs (Political Action Committee), “Protect Redondo, No On Measure A,” and “Redondo United” perpetuate AES’ duplicity, claiming they are independent, anti-Measure A citizens groups. PAC 460 filings are public and available from the City Clerk. The filing for “Protect Redondo, No on Measure A” shows AES donated all of their funds.
Ms. Lisa Rodriguez of the “Redondo United” PAC wants you to believe $450 received from 4 people (per their filing), their CFO/Treasurer, the mayor, and two other residents is substantial. Hogwash! This is hardly the large resident movement that Rodriguez falsely portrays. Every lawn sign Rodriguez and her cohort, Ms. Ila Friend deliver is an AES-funded propaganda piece. AES has found Redondo Beach puppets to assist in conducting their Fear and Smear campaign.
Conversely, hundreds of residents raised $68,000 for the YES on A campaign through NoPowerPlant.com, since this PAC was officially formed in June 2012. Prior to this, NoPowerPlant.com raised $35,000 for costs associated with the initiative that is now Measure A. Also, our supporters obtained over 9,000 signatures (7,468 qualified Redondo voters) in just 40 days, to get this on the ballot. THIS is a large resident’s movement!
Dawn Esser
Redondo Resident
NoPowerPlant Leader
Power Surplus Not Adequate
Dear ER:
One of the issues that the Yes On A/NPP bunch uses to bolster their position is the so called power surplus which they deem is sufficient to allow some power plants to be retired. The CISO surplus standards are too low. Last April CISO presented power surplus numbers at the Redondo Beach council hearing which they called adequate. However, in the summer, there were two “Flex Alerts” but fortunately no brownouts. That’s one reason to not completely trust their methodology. Far bigger margins are needed to provide for unexpected contingencies even though they are expensive to maintain.
In 2020, by state mandate, 33 percent of California’s power must come from renewable sources. Renewable electricity generation is not available from most sources on a 24-7 continuing basis. Around early January 2013, the LA Times ran an article in which the issue of standby power plants was discussed. Essentially, the amount of standby power needed is quite substantial, almost as much as the amount of green power.
This would be provided by plants such as the AES Redondo plant. Electricity generation is mostly a for-profit activity. Refitting an existing plant results in lower costs than building new ones in distant locations. The power plant operators will continue to press for this as long as they can see a healthy bottom line.
F. E. Goroszko
Redondo Beach
The Diet of Lent
Dear ER:
February 13th marked the beginning of Lent, the 40-day period before Easter, when Christians would abstain from meat and dairy products in remembrance of Jesus’ 40 days of fasting before launching his ministry.
Devout Christians who observe meatless Lent help reduce their risk of chronic disease, as well as environmental degradation and animal abuse.
Dozens of medical reports have linked consumption of animal products with elevated risk of heart failure, stroke, cancer, and other killer diseases. A 2007 U.N. report named meat production as the largest source of greenhouse gases and water pollution. Undercover investigations have documented farm animals being beaten, caged, crowded, deprived, mutilated, and shocked.
Lent offers a superb opportunity to honor Jesus’ powerful message of compassion and love by adopting a meat-free diet for Lent and beyond.
It’s the diet mandated in Genesis I-29 and observed in the Garden of Eden.
Every supermarket offers a rich array of meat and dairy alternatives, as well as the more traditional vegetables, fruits, and grains. Entering “vegetarian” in your favorite search engine provides lots of meat replacement products, recipes, and transition tips.
Jack Matler
Hermosa Beach
One of Redondo’s Dirty Little Secrets
Dear ER:
The proliferation of speed cushions throughout Redondo was initiated by a fraudulent traffic study and a discriminatory policy arrived at in secret by the Mayor and City Council in 2007. Steve Aspel was the architect and bully behind the speed cushions. Residents on Avenue C demanded speed cushions for their street to supposedly reduce traffic speeds. The average traffic speed on Ave. C was 30.89 mph and 31.12 mph on Ave. B. Traffic volume was 721 vehicles per day on Ave. C and 545 vehicles per day on Ave. B. A study was conducted with 2 sets of speed cushions and a stop sign installed on Ave. C. Traffic volume on Ave. C after the installation was 603 and the city reported that there were 347 vehicles per day on Ave. B. Avenue B did not have speed cushions, but a roadblock had been placed on the street for sewer work. Redondo city traffic engineering felt the roadblock did not affect the survey.
After the survey was complete, a resident vote was to be taken to determine if there was a two-thirds majority necessary for leaving the speed cushions permanently on Ave. C. Before the voting, Steve Aspel was asked by Ave. B residents if they were included in the voting area. Steve Aspel stated that Ave. B residents would be a part of the voting area. Due to traffic diversion, most cities such as Sacramento, have a speed cushion policy that requires the vote on the use of speed cushions to include all residents in the “impact area.”
Placing physical restrictions on one street will cause traffic diversion to alternate streets. Before the final vote by the city council, an e-mail was sent to the city council members and traffic engineering informing them of the fatally flawed survey and traffic diversion. At the final meeting, the city council stated the voting results. Ave. B residents never voted on the speed cushions placed on Ave. C because the policy secretly established by the city council was that only residents on the applicable street were to be polled. No questions were asked concerning the traffic diversion and increased ambulance response times. Traffic on Ave. B as determined by Redondo police in 2011 was 830 vehicles per day. Ave. B has experienced a 152 percent increase in traffic and is a more dangerous, less tranquil street, all caused by the speed cushions on Ave. C. Steve Aspel has not brought people together, but he has rather caused divisions and acrimony in our community. The Redondo city government needs to change. Secret deals and contrived data should be unacceptable to every Redondo resident.
Jim Roth
Redondo Beach
Proper Notice
Dear ER:
I am extremely grateful that the HBPD is going to be ticketing cars for not turning in their tires on hills and most importantly, blocking sidewalks with their cars so that pedestrians, strollers and wheelchairs will not have to go in the street. These are both long standing State Laws and if Interim Police Chief Steve Johnson is seeing that these are enforced, he deserves lots of credit.
However, I do think the City should be giving better notice citywide, with ads in Easy Reader and one or two months’ notice before citations. People need time to clear their garages, get rid of extra cars, store motor homes offsite, and even reconsider the size of their cars on short driveways. If the city can send a letter to every resident that oil drilling will once again be put in front of us, they can certainly give better notice about a change in enforcement of State Laws. And when the laws are changed in the bar district, i.e., no smoking or Styrofoam, they have given many months notice.
There is such abuse of the blocking of driveways, people leave one foot, two feet, three feet, even longer to access their garages while their cars stick in the street numerous feet, not to mention the obscured sidewalks. I regularly see them sticking in the street greater than the width of the parallel parking spots.
I hope that the current City Council stands firmly in support of the PD and parking enforcement for these laws are important public safety issues. I remember the last time they tried to enforce no blocking the sidewalks, people packed the Council Chambers and then the Council dropped it. This was many, many years ago.
Thanks for doing the right and safe things.
Kathleen Midstokke
Hermosa Beach
Pay for Park
Dear ER:
Those who put Proposition A on the Redondo Beach ballot made a terrible mistake coupling abolishment of the power plant with rezoning the land for a park. They would further cripple the financial situation of the city in which city employees have taken salary cuts three years in a row.
We cannot afford to create, maintain, and staff a park when today there is not enough money to replace inoperable play equipment in most of the neighborhood parkettes. Such a large park would be used by many outside our city. Councilman Bill Brand has appealed to residents in Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach to walk precincts in favor of Proposition A and for his re-election. Why has he done that?
If people in the South Bay want a park in this area, they should be prepared to pay for it. I have not seen anyone with petitions to create a park district throughout the area with the taxing power to finance such a park.
In my opinion, the park zoning was placed on the ballot because some feared abolitions of the power plant would bring back “Heart of the City.” That project was dead on arrival. No one wants residential usage there. If the power plant is removed, the city should seek input from residents as to what should go there as is being done by residents for the new waterfront development.
Some people have indicated they are voting for the proposition to get rid of the large power transmission lines along Catalina Avenue through the city. Representatives of Southern California Edison Company, which owns the transmission lines, have said the lines will remain even if the power plant goes because the lines bring power into the city as well as transmit it out.
Finally, how would you, if you are a home owner, like your property to be rezoned to a park, reducing the value of your home. If it were me, I’d rush to a lawyer to sue. That is probably what AES would do. Our city cannot afford any more expensive law suits.
I urge residents to be financially responsible and vote NO on Ballot Measure A.
Lorraine Geittmann
Redondo Beach
Member of the Redondo Beach Parks and Recreation Commission
CEC Decision
Dear ER:
Redondo Beach voters are being bombarded by propaganda in print and TV featuring a retired fire chief who is clearly not familiar with the facts on Measure A. Since he is not a Redondo resident (he lives in Laguna Hills), one can understand why he is confused. He might have been a great fire chief, but his strengths don’t seem to extend into the land use, urban planning and zoning realms.
He seems to be in fear that his hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per year Redondo Beach retirement pension and healthcare are at risk with Measure A. He should be more concerned that the $385,000 per year that AES pays to Redondo Beach in taxes on their 50 oceanfront acres barely cover his benefits. If he realized that Measure A would bring Redondo Beach millions in revenues from the 30-40 percent (20 oceanfront acres) commercial zoning component in Measure A, he would support a vote of YES on A, and would not perpetuate the fear mongering. Just the occupancy tax from a hotel within the commercial allocation will produce $2 million or more for the City of Redondo Beach.
Measure A forces the California Energy Commission (CEC) to consider a new plant based on future energy needs, so AES’ threats of lawsuits against Redondo Beach are baseless – it is a CEC decision, ultimately.
AES’ disinformation machine is cranked up, and we can expect more scare tactics in the weeks ahead.
Vote Yes on Measure A, and make AES go away!
Robert Gaddis
Redondo Beach
