News Alert
Hermosa Beach Boy Recants Claim He Was Sexually…

School Board Approves Power Plant Resolution

The Redondo Beach Board of Education approves a resolution that opposes a new power plant if certain conditions aren't met.

The Redondo Beach Board of Education on Tuesday night passed a resolution 4-1 concerning plans to repower AES Redondo Beach. School board member Jane Diehl dissented.

The resolution was written by school board vice president Laura Emdee and member Drew Gamet. It states that the school board will oppose the construction of a new power plant unless the new power plant meets all of the following conditions:

The proposed Power Plant meets all the requirements, regulations and standards of the Federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. (Environmental Protection Agency), the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Quality Management District; and

The proposed Power Plant installs the best available pollution control technology; and

The proposed Power Plant is of vital necessity to the energy security of the Redondo Beach Unified School District.

Because it uses a method called once-through cooling to lower the temperature of the superheated steam that spins the gas turbines, the current power plant must be retired, repowered (rebuilt), retrofitted or receive an exemption to continue operating by 2020, per the state of California. The power contract for the current plant expires in 2018.

Power plant opponents have placed an initiative on the ballot that seeks to prevent AES Southland from building a new power plant on the property. Measure A would rezone the property to a mixture of up to 40 percent commercial or institutional zoning, depending on the use. The rest of the property would be zoned as open space or parkland, with power generation an incompatible use.

In the meantime, AES has submitted a plan to repower the current plant to the California Energy Commission. Though the CEC deemed the initial application "data inadequate," AES plans to submit supplemental data to complete the application by the commission's next meeting.

Proponents of the new natural-gas plant say that it will run cleaner, take up less space and provide California's energy grid with flexibility as the state aims to increase the amount of power it gets from renewable resources; however, opponents of the new plant point to AES' application, which states that if the plant runs as often as AES would like it to, pollution would increase dramatically. Opponents also say the power plant would continue to depress property values and slow economic growth in the area.

Power plant opponents have urged both the Redondo Beach City Council and the Board of Education to take a position opposing a new plant. The city council has not taken a position on the issue; however, it has decided that it will act as an "intervenor"—the highest level of participation afforded a person or group—during the CEC's hearings.

The school board decided in December that it would consider a resolution opposing a new power plant based on the potential health impacts. The board decided that it would not take a position on Measure A.

See below for the live blog. Entries are in chronological order. Please forgive any typos or misspellings!

6:50 p.m.: It's a packed house when the meeting gets around to the public hearing section. There are people in the audience wearing giant green pins with the words “Yes AES” and a graphic of the words “RES” crossed out, like a “no smoking” sign, in addition to the people from the NoPowerPlant.com political action committee. People can speak now or right before the power plant item comes up.

The time limit for all comments on the power plant will 30 minutes—15 minutes for each side. "There will be respect in this room. I don't want to hear any eh eh eh when someone else is talking. If we do not have any respect ... we will stop the meeting," says president Anita Avrick.

Avrick says she personally received 182 emails. "I read every single one of them and ... up until 11 o'clock this morning, I answered them," she says. "Understand that we have heard you, and we have heard what you have to say.

At least seven people pass before a woman whose name I didn't catch comes up.

"I think that if we were to do away with AES, it would be to eliminate a part of Redondo Beach that is a legacy," she says. Keeping the power plant would keep Redondo a unique place in the power industry.

After a few more passes, James Howard comes up. He's wearing a "YES AES." Button

"I don't know why you people think you should vote on this," he says. He says that the school board "(doesn't) take care of business like this" because it's the city council's job. Actually, it's the business of the California Energy Commission.

Gary, whose last name I don't catch, says he kind of agrees. He reads the Beach Reporter and the Easy Reader and hopes they're here reporting. He's questioning whether the letters are really as one-sided against the power plant. (He didn't mention Patch, but we print all letters we get, unless they're completely crackpot—reptilian lizards taking over the world come to mind.)

6:59 p.m.: Lezlie Campeggi, a NoPowerPlant.com supporter, steps up to the podium. "This is not a resolution to vote yes or no on a power plant, as a lot of people are already saying," she says. "This is a ... school board who has taken their time to write a beautifully crafted resolution talking about what their concerns are and possibly addressing that ... to the CEC."

She continues, "This is not a school board saying 'yes' or 'no' on Measure A." She notes that the district may experience reduced revenue from a power plant's purported blighting influence because Measure Q, among others, depend on property values.

"This is what the resolution does, it says, 'hey, CEC sit up and take notice,'" Campeggi says.

7:02 p.m.: Dr. Roger Light, who spoke at the last meeting about the power plant, is against the plant.

"Make no mistake, a new power plant ... will lead to more premature death," he says. "There's no safe level of air pollution. The APA develops guidelines and standards of acceptable pollution."

Children exposed to the highest level of pollutions have the lowest test scores and attendance rates, according to one study he quotes.

7:06 p.m.: Lori Zaremski, who also spoke against the plant at the last school board meeting dealing with the issue, praises the board of education for coming up with the resolution and urges them to vote for it.

"I had the pleasure of attending the CEC meeting in Sacramento," she says. "I learned that actually it is not the role of the CEC to protect Redondo Beach students—that that is the role of the Redondo Beach (Unified) School District."

She calls the CEC process "amazingly complicated." She implies that the "data inadequacy" ruling from the CEC means that AES was trying to subvert the process; however, AES has indicated that it is normal for the CEC to determine the initial application for a project "data inadequate."

7:08 p.m.: Joe Lenihan asks if they can turn the lights off "because that's what (the no power plant people) want to do." He says he doesn't see the issue

"What we're gonna get here is a better power plant than we have now," he says. "(AES) has a right to do this. And they have a right to build a cleaner power plant."

He says the school district will get less money if the city puts in a park or if the city gets sued. Actually, I believe the only money the city gives to the school district is on leases for properties owned by the school district.

7:11 p.m.: Eugene has lived in Redondo for 53 years. He's wearing a green button. "I'm trying not to be senile ... I can't understand why we're shooting ourselves in the foot," he says. "If it's approved by CEC, regardless of what they say here ... I would think that our Environmental Protection Agency will make sure we don't get bad plant."

"I don't think this is the ... right way to go," he says. He wants to wait until the CEC makes its ruling, then launch the opposition. Unfortunately, the CEC has the ultimate authority on this—once it makes its ruling, I don't think it can be overturned.

He says the person who tried to get him to sign a petition for the power plant was very "controversial" with him, and now he won't vote for Measure A.

7:12 p.m.: Tony Czuleger thanks the school board for considering the resolution.

"We need to look at the situation in a whole. This is an educational organization here. You're going to make an educational decision. You're not going to make a knee-jerk decision," he says. I think the knee-jerk decision is one to oppose a new power plant.

He says he's a general contractor, and that plans at the Planning Commission "never pass the first time." I think he's referring to the AES data inadequacy ruling from the CEC.

7:15 p.m.: Susan, a physics professor at El Camino College, says she settled on Redondo Beach after three years because she thought the air quality would be good.

She commends the school board for thinking about children's health—for her as a parent, and for her as an asthmatic. She urges the board to pass the resolution.

7:18 p.m.: An aerospace engineer who's name I didn't catch is encouraging the school district to pass the resolution. "Clean gas" is a carcinogen, she says. "Advocate for real change and technology change and consider the financial impacts, the amount of tax revenues that the city of Redondo Beach is getting from AES is appallingly low."

Time is up for discussion items. It sounds as though they're giving the pro-resolution folks three minutes to speak before the action items and the anti-resolution folks six minutes to speak before the action items. (The sides used 12 minutes and 9 minutes, respectively.)

7:21 p.m.: Back to action items and the resolution. "This resolution has absolutely nothing to do with Measure A, no matter how we vote, it may not be used in any way to say that we are in support of or against Measure A," says Avrick. "It is a resolution on how we feel about having a power plant with our children, if things are not met, but it has nothing to do with Measure A in any way, shape or form."

There's time for one person in favor and two people against, max.

7:25 p.m.: Eric Pendergraft, president of AES Southland, gets up to speak.

He's focusing on three points: new power plant will be cleaner, more efficient and more environmentally friendly than the existing plant. It will produce about 35 percent more electricity and produce about the same emissions of the new plant, which they say will run at about 20 percent.

"We don't think the board should take any position on our plant," says Pendergraft. He doesn't want them to pass the resolution.

"The phrase 'without any exemption' is going to set us all up for a lot of controversy," says Pendergraft. The plant will be using an exemption—an emission reduction credit. "It will have to surrender these credits ... however, our project meets certain criteria that allow it to use a regulation that the AQMD has put in place that says the AQMD will supply the credits, not AES ... It is termed an exemption because the AQMD supplies the offsets, not AES."

He suggests they delay the vote to "ensure that the language you are considering meets the language of what you're trying to do."

7:27 p.m.: Arlene Staich, a former school board member, is at the podium. "The power plant does have potential to emit hazardous particles, but they are known, and the CPUC will determine where the power is needed, and the other people will determine if the plant, where it should be located," she says. She says the school district's wellness policy refers to internal, not external items.

"We need to know more about the facts before you make this resolution," she says. She wants them to support a more environmentally friendly plant

7:28 p.m.: Councilman Bill Brand says, "This plant is not going to be cleaner. That's why they are asking for exemptions," he says.

"Even at a 20 percent run-rate, you're looking at about 15 tons—that's about a four times increase," he says. He notes that this resolution is in line with what other school boards in other communities have passed. "You're in a good position. I appreciate what you guys are doing. It's a good resolution."

"It'll get built if it's needed," says Brand.

30 seconds left in favor of the resolution; 1 minute, 30 seconds against.

7:31 p.m.: Dawn Esser, head of the NoPowerPlant.com PAC, thanks the school board for the resolution.

"This is a wonderful resolution. It's what we need to do. We need to send a message to the CEC that we have public opposition so thank you very much," she says.

So far, everyone who's wearing a green button has agreed with everything said tonight and is passing their turn.

7:33 p.m.: Eric Rasmussen, a retired professional economist, says he traveled in a lot of countries "where the lights were not on." He asks the board to remember the power outages in the east side of the L.A. basin before the recession.

"As a school board, you have a responsibility to assure that the power is on when the students are here," he says. "We must be very careful about the statistics being bandied about."

7:35 p.m.: The school board has opened their discussion.

"Well, this was something that Ms. Emdee and I sat down and crafted, worked on together and I think in the process of going through this got out exactly what we wanted," says Gamet.

"I'm quite flattered that you all think I have any power. I've been on the school board for 10 years and nobody listens to anything we say," says board member Jane Diehl. "A resolution seems to be a waste of time. Nobody reads them; nobody sees them; nobody cares." She would prefer a letter to the CEC—"all these 'whereas' get lost in my world."

She is appreciative of the work that's been done; she just think that a letter would be "much more effective."

7:39 p.m.: Board member Todd Loewenstein thanks everyone for being there. He says he's concerned that people don't realize that protecting the health of students is the school board's domain (though land use, economics and electricity aren't the board's domain). "Knowing all these people ... none of us makes knee-jerk reactions or knee-jerk decisions. We study things beforehand," he says.

His concern is "particularly about particulate matter." He's on the board of the American Heart Association, so he sees lots of presentations on heart disease and strokes, which can be caused by particulate matter. 288,000 people died in one year from particulate matter caused by burning fossil fuels, according to one study he quotes.

"I think it's great what AES is doing in trying to modernize the plant ... but what gives me great cause for concern is what the experts say about particulate matter," he says, challenging everyone to go home and "Google particulate matter in children."

7:42 p.m.: "We're not allowed to discuss this between us when we're up here," explains Avrick. She says she feels similar to Jane Diehl, and says she thinks a letter would be more effective than a resolution.

She's also uncomfortable with the "Resolved" part. "They'll read a letter better than they will a resolution," says Avrick.

"So you would have us say the same thing?" Gamet asks.

"To me it has more power if we just talk about the schools," says Diehl. "If we really want to speak to these people, why don't we speak to them very clearly?"

7:46 p.m.: "It's two pages—it's not a healthcare bill," says Gamet of the resolution. It sounds as though he's in favor of it. "I guess if there is some concern about verbiage or some sort of amendments to what is here, I think we could entertain that as a board."

He agrees that it's important for the school board to "opine" on this sort of thing. He says he's disheartened that he didn't get "this kind of crowd and interest" for new programs or textbook adoptions.

Emdee asks Superintendent Dr. Steven Keller if there's more weight to a resolution versus a letter. Keller doesn't know.

"I don't know if you put it in a letter if it's going to make any difference if the content is still the same," says Loewenstein. "I think what you did is brilliant."

7:49 p.m.: Diehl thinks that the resolution makes it seem like the board totally opposes the construction of a new power plant. Those in the audience who spoke against the power plant agreed; however, I'm not sure if they read the entire resolution.

"Ninety percent of the emails I got, people didn't read the proposal—they read the top line," says Avrick. "The top line does not say what we're doing." She suggests the school board change the headline to say "position" instead of "opposition." She also wants the "resolved" statement reworded to make it more clear that they board is not against a new plant if it meets all three conditions mentioned at the end.

7:51 p.m.: Emdee says she's considering a motion to change "without any exemptions" to "with minimal exceptions." "The whole point of this whole thing was the pollution, so we don't want there to be loopholes ... so we want to make it clear that that's our concern," she says. "All we're doing is expressing our concerns ... All I want is there to be the least amount of pollution possible."

She moves they strike "without any exemptions." It's seconded and passes 3-2, with Loewenstein and Gamet opposing.

Avrick calls for a vote. It passes 4-1, with Diehl opposing.

8 p.m.: Gamet says he'll make a motion to make slight modifications to the language—changing "opposing" to "position on" in the title and underlining and capping the "unless". That motion passes 4-1, with Diehl opposing.

Stu January 23, 2013 at 03:34 PM
Let's see the entire resolution the school board passed so as to enable your readers to make their own judgements on what was actually decided. I have a feeling that the last minute amendments diluted the intent of the resolution.
L. Campeggi January 23, 2013 at 03:58 PM
There were two modifications made last night. One was in the beginning of the resolution to change wording from "oppose" to "position," meaning the school board felt it prudent to lead with the resolution that this is their "position" in the matter, versus saying they "oppose" something without first outlining their conditions: The other modification was in this last part of the resolution: "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redondo Beach Unified School District Board of Education does hereby formally oppose the proposed new Power Plant by AES SOUTHLAND, LLC unless it can be demonstrated that: •The proposed Power Plant meets all the requirements, regulations and standards of the Federal Clean Air Act, the US EPA, the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Quality Management District, WITHOUT ANY EXEMPTIONS; and •The proposed Power Plant installs the best available pollution control technology; and •The proposed Power Plant is of vital necessity to the energy security of the Redondo Beach Unified School District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be made a part of the minutes of this meeting. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be forwarded to the California Energy Commission and the City of Redondo Beach." The board voted to strike the words, "WITHOUT ANY EXEMPTIONS." Hopefully it will be on the RBUSD web site soon for everyone's reference.
sheri patterson January 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM
The striking of the words "without any exemptions" is the modification that I'm most disappointed in. It definitley took the teeth out of the resolution, specifically with regard to exemptions for emission offsets and modeling. The current exemption they submitted with their application lets them off the hook from performing a dispersion modeling analysis. That is exactly why AES President Eric Pendergraft made SUCH A BIG DEAL last night when he spoke about the word "exemptions". The CEC looks to make sure boxes are checked in the application and that is it. This is exactly why AES knows that the ONLY speed bump they will have in this process, is "if" Redondo voters pass Measure A. Only with a zoning change, does it make their application non-compliant and then it forces the CEC to do an analysis to see if AES-Redondo is needed. All the experts in this industry have been advising Redondo of this exact issue. Let's hope the residents are listening. I was not surprised at all to hear Jane Diehl not support the resolution as she is on AES' side. She already signed the ballot argument against Measure A to protect AES. You'll see her name/signature under their dishonest argument in the ballot books that will be arriving soon. Along with Matt Kilroy's too. I hope parents are paying attention and watching who is being influenced by AES and who is not. Your vote could not be more powerful on March 5th.
Mike Walker January 24, 2013 at 02:53 AM
the school board can always come out with a second letter strongly opposing the power plant. This sometimes happens after the CEC process is under way and they can see the reality of what happens. Meanwhile the rooftops sit vacant.
Kelly Sarkisian January 24, 2013 at 06:20 AM
I don't think your personal attacks on Ms. Diehl are supported by fact and seem to be made out of assumption. If you would like to know her reasons why she is against the measure, ask her. But when you state she is on AES' side or she is influenced by AES you are extrapalating a little too far. If you don't agree with her, that's too bad. Her opinion may be different than yours, that doesnt make it dishonest. I can easily characterize the BBR\NPP people's statements as dishonest also. Your team forgot to inform the public about the negative side of your measure; potential lawsuits, bankruptcy, land grabbing ect. Although you guys like to demonize everyone that disagrees with you, not everyone has horns under their hats.
Gerry O'Connor January 24, 2013 at 09:18 AM
Everyone now knows "Kelly Sarkisian" is a fake name and the person hiding behind it only offers angry personal attacks and wholly unsubstantiated claims. Even his/her fellow Measure A opponents must now cringe whenever "Kelly" surfaces. Redondo deserves more civil discourse!
Jane McDowall January 24, 2013 at 05:42 PM
Measure A is not about Land Grabbing. And it's been written with great consideration for existing law and precedent. There are other cities along the CA coastline that have kept new power plants from being built in their communities and no law suits ensued. If the power plant is not needed for the CA grid, then why keep it? Redondo deserves better.
Jim Light January 24, 2013 at 07:44 PM
Not sure why you keep hiding behind a fake name but: Sheri did not say Jane's opinion was dishonest. What she said was the ballot argument she signed her name to is dishonest, provably so, Here are just two examples: 1) They argue the zoning was not a public process. We have video proving otherwise. In fact it was open for public comment longer and we held more meetings than normal city processes. But even more important Measure A actually incorporated changes based on those comments...unlike most City zoning changes. 2) Their argument states "Measure A is a veiled attempt by a few to improve their property values by taking the property value of another." This is also false. I am one of the main authors of Measure A. My property value will not be affected in any way by the power plant. I am too far away and it is not in view. They even further state "proponents have even discussed how to forcefully take the property by eminent domain...". We have NEVER advocated eminent domain. In fact, quite the contrary. So Sheri's statement is verifiably accurate. Whether Ms. Diehl understood the document was false is up to conjecture.
sheri patterson January 25, 2013 at 12:23 AM
@Kelly, or should we shout AES. Enough! Residents are FED UP with AES' lies and the many folks around this town on their payroll. Parents have been contacting our residents group and telling us they were offered a free meal to show up and speak out in favor of AES to try to manipulate the School Board. AES offering residents free meals at the expense of the health of our children. DISGUSTING! This entire AES propaganda machine that all residents are witnessing is exactly why they are the most despised company in Redondo Beach and residents want them to retire the plant when their contract expires. Listen up, AES and all your surrogates-- Our children and our families are not for sale. Not for a free meal nor any additional dirty money you have. We will all see the thousands of dollars you spent on TV commercials coming to our local channels very soon and we'll all witness the dirty tricks and scare tactics that you have to lower yourselves to, because the TRUTH is not on your side. March 5th cannot come soon enough. For all that is right and just, I pray every parent in this city votes YES on Measure A and let's their voice be heard LOUD and clear.
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 05:24 AM
What do YOU call it when a small group of people attempt to rezone private property and in that zoning delineate what the private owner can do with their property? Its a land grab, the restructuring/rezoning of privatly owned land cannot be construed as anything else. Rezone to kill the plant, but allow the property owner to work with the community/city to redevelop THEIR land!
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 05:27 AM
Sheri if you get one thing right please understand this: I do not want the plant, I do not work for AES, I am only standing up for the property rights of the private owner. I do not agree with your tactics or your opinion. I appreciate your vigor, but I beg to differ with your opinion.
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 05:48 AM
Mr Light, regarding your first point. I have my nose to the news grindstone, I read every local paper everyday (online versions). I never saw an open meeting announcement regarding the measure. I'm not saying you didn't promote it, but I question the amount of distribution you garnered. I beleive you had meetings, just not meetings that included a large segment of the population. Per your second point: I'm not impressed by the point regarding the property values, it's plausible and I'm sure a few people are hoping for the increased value. I do know that the no power plant folks ( by cause, not by name) explored eminent domain. They quickly explored the idea until they found out it wasn't supported by law. They next plan is what we are dealing with now. You and I both know that the only way the plant can go away is due to the public health detriment coupled with a long shot at rezoning. It's the only way the law allows the taking of private property in this case. It seems that Ms. Deihl believes in the ballot argument or she wouldn't have signed it. I wish just once, you would agree to disagree with people (Ms. Diehl) not me as you have to follow Clinton's advice.
Jim Light January 25, 2013 at 06:40 AM
You must not be as diligent as you profess. Plenty of the public attended. So the word got out. The meetings were posted in the Calendar section of each paper and the Patch. It was on three websites. And Bill Brand and/or NPP leaders advertised each meeting at City Council meetings. For those who signed up on the NPP email list or Bill brand's email list, the meetings were announced as well. You are just plain wrong on the NPP folks and eminent domain. I have worked with them before they even formed NPP and that topic never came up. You are also wrong on zoning. The zoning can be changed for simple incompatibilities of surrounding uses. The rezoning of Ruxton Lane had nothing to do with public health. The City made that zoning change and I did not see any of your folks crying about a taking in that. You just don't seem to understand land use law. Both cases are a rezoning not a taking. The City is not taking anyone's property away. While Ms. Diehl may believe what she signed, the fact is it is not factual, which is what Sheri stated. Neither Sheri nor I said anything about Ms. Diehl's motives, intent or understanding. We simply said the document she signed is verifiably inaccurate.
Fred Reardon January 25, 2013 at 08:44 AM
Kelly, AES does not have a private property right to pollute its neighbors and cause illness/disease via a toxic plume. AES does not possess a permit to run a new polluting power plant. Any new pollution must be approved by Redondo Beach citizens, via zoning, the AQMD, and the CEC. You act so concerned about private property rights, but strategically neglect to consider Redondo Beach citizens right to clean air. Your polluted stance is hypocritical and harmful. Please let me know why you think it's okay for AES to take our private property...our clean air? Feel free to take a few days to report back on this. And, it's cool if you need to confirm strategy with headquarters in Virginia. Don't let Kelly (or whoever he or she is since she/he hides behind a fake name) or AES mislead you. Vote Yes on Measure A.
Christine Wike January 25, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Rezoning is both common and legal. Cities can and do regulalry rezone property for the health and welfare of their residents. Measure A allows AES to gain significant economic value out of their property. The proposed AES plant will expose densely populated residents to 15x more deadly particulate pollution than the current plant (all without a buffer)! This residential area includes 6 schools, 10 parks, 3 athletic fields and over 28,000 residents with 1.25 miles of the AES plant. This is the absolute worst place to build a new power plant. Vote Yes on A!
Christine Wike January 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Are you concerned that the proposed AES plant will expose densely populated residents to 15x more deadly particulate pollution than the current plant? If you don't want the new plant here, please describe your solution instead of criticizing people who have worked so dilligently on this. Unfortunately, state agencies like the CEC are geared for approval, and unless the CEC does a power needs assessment, it will not determine whether power from this site is critical. The CEC will not do a power needs assessment unless the proposed plant violates city zoning ordinances. The City Attorney's impartial analysis of Measure A states that its rezoning will force the CEC to do a needs assessment (that they will otherwise not do). With this needs assessment, the CEC can only override local zoning if they find there is no other way to supply the power. Vote Yes on A!
Christine Wike January 25, 2013 at 11:21 AM
There were numerous meeting announcements inviting the public to participate in the initiative draft discussions (even AES was invited). Here is a clip that shows one of the many announcements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_N9TmQQVJM&feature=youtu.be Mayor Gin knew full well that NoPowerPlant held public meetings over an 8 month period and the City's website shows the dialogue with NPP leader, Dawn Esser. Mayor Gin and Councilman Matt Kilroy have authored a ballot argument against the residents' Measure A making 100% dishonest claims about public input. Here is the text taken from their argument submitted to the City Clerk's office: "Measure A was created without any input from the property owner. It was created without open and public meetings that would have been required if the City had proposed a zoning change." The dishonest argument will be printed in every ballot book mailed out to voters. It's important to note: AES was invited to work with Redondo residents and work together on the initiative. They refused every invitation.
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 01:28 PM
The cyber stalking is a little weird! Stop googling me and looking at my fb profile! Gerry, how do I know you are a real person or a " fake person" as your friends say? Wait...yep...don't care!
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 01:35 PM
Wow Fred! Since you moved here you have been living under the "toxic plume". According to your logic, they can't steal what you never had. Clean air is not private property, you cannot own the air. I'm starting to think some of the NPP people are thick headed. If you can find a legal way to close/not rebuild the plant and allow AES to do what ever they want (with public/city approval) that would be the best solution. If your goal is to close the plant, that should be the extent of the measure, but we all know you won't get the CECs attention that way, hence the land grabbing rezone. Your motives are clear here, force the plant out, rezone their property out from under them. I wish there was a legal way I could rezone your property to parkland! Like I said before, if you want the property, buy them out!
Jim Light January 25, 2013 at 02:28 PM
Just as someone can't own the air, no one has the "right" to pollute it. While we could allow AES to "do whatever they want", that is no a prudent path. The last time AES showed their hand, they asked the City for 1500 condos PLUS a smaller power plant. That plan became Heart of the City and that was ONLY defeated by residents having to go out twice to get thousands of referendum signatures. Mayor Gin vetoed a poll of the people on whether we want a new power plant. It passed the City Council and Mayor Gin vetoed it. The people cannot do that. Initiative law requires we change an ordinance or law. And it this case it is zoning ordinances. Measure A IS legal. Rezoning is legal. The density we have allowed them would allow 3 Crowne Plaza's or 11 Shade Hotels. It is fair zoning. And AES can get plenty of return on investment on it. Rezoning a residence is absurd, residential does not have the health and fiscal impacts of a power plant. And if they did, the average lot would only yield a 4500 sq ft park. And a 6200 sq ft two story home assuming a 200% FAR. That is just not viable. Current zoning DOES limit what a homeowner can do and does setaside a comparatively significant portion for setbacks and public rights of way. Your arguments show that you really don't understand land use law and zoning. You should study up a bit more before you make inaccruate assertions and comparisons.
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 04:39 PM
Thanks for the reply Fred!
sheri patterson January 25, 2013 at 06:31 PM
@Kelly (AES. NIce try). So called residents that are not listed as a Redondo Beach voter do not post 250 times all over Patch Redondo attacking Mr. Light and putting forth completely unsubstantiated arguments repeatedly and that are outright offensive and disrespectful. No resident does that. Residents of Redondo Beach have far more class. So whoever you are, know that it's quite apparent you work for AES and are a fraud. Your posts on another Patch post were disgraceful. There is a reason AES fears Mr. Light. He has fact-checked their dishonest propaganda for the last 2 years and his expertise in this field/intelligence is a threat to them. Redondo needs more good leaders like this. This is exactly why AES and the developers in this town would prefer to have Jeff Ginsburg in office in District 1. Residents will get far less voting for the candidate that the special interests in this town favor.
Fred Reardon January 25, 2013 at 08:54 PM
Kelly (or whatever your real name is), now that you've been exposed as a fake name citizen, I was wondering if you would care to have a sort of Oprah moment and come clean. Are you sitting in a cheap office space cubical under the shadow of one of AES's coal fired plants? Your arguments have been so strong that many of us, in the No Power Plant debate circle, think you are doping? I like your idea about rezoning my property. I could open a little wine shop next to a mini park...a sort of Tavern on the Green in RB. We could meet there for a glass and then stroll over to the (Measure A rezoned) new AES pollution free park without the landscape being polluted by smokestacks. We could catch a kids' ball game at one of the new fields before grabbing a bite to eat at the AES Bar and Grill. Then we could go to a nice music festival at the AES open clean air pavilion. After the festival, we could plan a get together for the next day involving a tour of the new UCLA Extension Marine Biology and Storm Water Recapture Technology Center. Unfortunately, I don't think you will be able to attain the support you need from RB citizens to rezone my property because I am not attempting to poison all my neighbors with tons and tons of particulate matter pollution. I don’t care what AES does with this property as long as it doesn’t involve polluting my family’s lungs and killing aquatic life. Vote Yes on Measure A
Kelly Sarkisian January 25, 2013 at 09:05 PM
This sentence is really the only one I should have read. " I don’t care what AES does with this property as long as it doesn’t involve polluting my family’s lungs and killing aquatic life" You and I finally agree on one point! A new day is borne!
Jim Light January 25, 2013 at 09:36 PM
And the only way to get rid of the plant is to vote Yes on Measure A.
Kelly Sarkisian January 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Btw way Gerry, shouldn't you mind your own city's business? You sign your other letters from Manhattan Beach. Goes with a theory I have heard about the NPP people: many don't even live in Redondo!
Jim Light January 27, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Nice try again Kelly. I've met Gerry. He comes to meetings. He is hardly cyber stalking. You however are not a registered voter nor do you show up in white pages. And as Gerry says your facebook page is ginned up. You are the voice of AES trying disguise yourself as a concerned resident. As to your innuendo that "many" NPP supporters do not live in Redondo, two can play that game. I heard many anti-A folks are paid by AES. Actually we know some are. And at the recent school board meeting three AES employees and two paid resident shills shepherded in the people wearing AES badges and handed them their talking points to say at the mike. We know they fed these folks at a local Mexican restaurant before the meeting. And guess what, once again you were nowhere to be found. Yes we have some folks who are concerned about the power plant who do not live in Redondo. Many Hermosa folks live closer to the plant than Redondo residents. The pollution doesn't stop at Redondo borders. And many boaters and harbor business people do not live in Redondo but care about the power plant and its blighting influence. But make no mistake, most of our supporters are Redondo residents. And over 7,400 of them signed the petition that got Measure A on the ballot. Our mailers, lawn signs, etc are funded by resident donations. Yours are funded by AES.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something