.

Video Newsflash: Chula Vista, CA Blows Up their Polluting Power Plant.

A Yes Vote on Measure A is huge step towards ending noise, landscape, and air pollution in Redondo Beach.

Just like Chula Vista, CA did, we can send a strong message to the California Energy Commission (CEC) that we don't want the unnecessary pollution in our city.

Because the proposed power plant in Redondo Beach is not considered a "must run" plant and because it it not needed for grid reliability, we have an opportunity, via Measure A, to rezone the property and let the CEC know that we do not want a new polluting power plant. Passage of Measure A will show the CEC that Redondo Beach does not want the plant, and they will likely not overturn the zoning and this will likely retire the polluting health threat.

Don't believe the propaganda saying we can't get rid of this thing. Don't let an out of town Corporation scare you into believing that we must roll over and breathe in the tons of additional proposed toxic chemical laden particulate matter that will lead to health problems for our families.

Many people said Chula Vista couldn't do it.

Redondo Beach City Councilman Bill Brand was there to video record the plant demolition and the celebration related to kicking off the development of Chula Vista's new park and commercial development which will replace the power plant. We can do this too.

Vote Yes on Measure A in the upcoming March election in Redondo Beach and let's do something great for our children and future generations in Redondo Beach. Check out this inspiring video.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jim Light February 04, 2013 at 06:58 AM
Well then let's look at Portrero and Hunters Point, both of which are now demolished. Both of which were owned by the power companies. And then let's look at your testimony to city council where you stated that the cost to demolish and remediate is not that much after you take into account the value of the salvage. You stated the teardown of your Riverside plant was almost fully offset by salvage value. And you previously stated that AES would not walk away from the plant (not that you legally could). You act as the though the Chula Vista plant was a happy consensus from the start but you leave out the strong opposition the city and residents had to mount for years to stop a new plant at this location....this was NOT a handshake between a power company and the city... and to paint it so is deceptive. No one has a "right" to pollute and blight their community. There is no "right" to build a power plant. If you can't build the plant, Measure A gives you more value for your land. And Measure A's development density is the same as in the harbor. Please substantiate your statement that Measure A results in higher costs for taxpayers. Our numbers show it generates more revenue for the city. You want Measure A to fail because you know it forces the CEC to do a power needs assessment. And that will not likely go well for your chances at application approval. Power from this site is not critical and there are plenty of alternatives.
Fred Reardon February 04, 2013 at 09:37 AM
A new power plant is not worth the risk to our community. With a new power plant we get tons of new particulate matter that can harm our families. You can't put a price tag on that. With a new power plant, we get decreased property values and lost revenue because people will continue to avoid visiting a harbor next to a big ugly polluting toxic plume. Our health care costs related to diseases from the particulate matter will indeed be costly. We will likely get gouged with inflated electricity costs based on AES's track record of plant stoppages/slow downs. Even if AES had a permit to run a new plant (which they don't) it appears the risk of opposing a new plant via a zoning change is worth it when you consider the alternative...lost revenue and, more importantly, particulate matter related poor health issues and deaths. AES has this sense of entitlement related to a new plant. Call me crazy, but I don't know why they think they can sue us for taking something they don't have (a new plant permit)? The zoning change doesn't effect their current operation. It appears the zoning change creates a situation that allows them to continue operating until the end of their contract (2020 +\-) but, sorry, after that they don't have a mandate for a new power plant.
Fred Reardon February 04, 2013 at 09:40 AM
The new pollution related to a proposed power plant has not been approved by the governing authorities. I just don't see any evidence of the zoning change as a taking of AES's property? What property does the zoning change take? It will still be their property. It comes down to entitlement. AES thinks they are entitled to pollute our air forever. Many of us don't think they should be entitled to pollute our air forever. Many us don't feel an obligation to buy AES's property either. It's not our fault they got suckered into buying a power plant without a guarantee that it could be run into eternity. I haven't received any offers from AES to buy my property or offers to compensate me (or my Redondo Beach neighbors) for all the negative impacts that will result from a new polluting plant.
Fred Reardon February 04, 2013 at 09:42 AM
In the recent debate, AES said the new plant wouldn't cost Redondo Beach a dime. I greatly disagree. Again, we will pay dearly via diminished property values, noise pollution, landscape pollution, air pollution, higher health costs, and exposure to particulate matter which can cause asthma, lung disease, autism, cancer, headaches, premature births, etc. AES said they would not build a new power plant if the people of Redondo Beach did not want it? Therefore, the passage if Measure A will send a message to AES that we don't want the plant. If they sue us, they will be not be honoring their word. Vote Yes on Measure A.
Kelly Sarkisian February 04, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Maybe you npp people should read between the lines. The port bought the plant, which respected the private property rights and got rid of the plant. You can try your apples to oranges arguments, but when met with facts they just don't fly. You guys are attempting to trample private property rights and have managed to ruin any chance of negotiation between the parties. Your best bet would be to buy the plant and in doing so you could kill two birds with one stone: retire the plant, prevent bankrupting the city. There are alternatives to your plan, the aforementioned is one of them with Chula Vista as proof. Your inability to look at other alternatives shows your closed minded thinking.
Jim Light February 04, 2013 at 02:25 PM
Yes Kelly, AFTER years of opposition AND final denial of their new plant application. Neither were Hunter's Point and Portrero bought during CEC process. You are touting the aftermath without acknowledging the prelude. After the CEC denies a permit, AES will come to the City to negotiate. We won't get there without Measure A. This is not difficult folks. Denial of the application FIRST. And to do that, Measure A must pass. Without Measure A we get a new plant for 50 years. Do not be mislead by Kelly. It is not a real person. It sings AES' song whenever it posts. Fear and deceit are AES has at this point. And they are working it hard.
Christine Wike February 04, 2013 at 07:42 PM
If you are concerned about preserving private property rights, please note that Measure A rezones the site after AES' current contract with J.P. Morgan to produce electricity (expires in 2018), and after the date given by the State (2020) for the existing power plant to be retired. AES will maintain ownership of their property. Redondo Beach is NOT responsible to buy, remediate or develop the land per new zoning, because AES will still own it if Measure A passes. AES cannot leave the infrastructure of the old power plant "as is," as that is unlawful. Without Measure A, we're going to get a new power plant that will increase particulate pollution 5-15% for the next 50 years plus a guarantee that those blighting power lines will stay. Measure A is the only chance to stop the power plant. The State Coastal Conservancy has committed to help fund this area’s open space as they have other projects up and down the coast if Measure A passes. It takes vision and leadership to create these types of special projects, and they are extremely important. The commercial revenue from Measure A will far exceed the power plant revenue for the city. Property values in the area will go up providing the city with more revenue, plus harbor business revenues will go up even further as soon as the blight of the power plant is gone.
David Mallen February 04, 2013 at 08:11 PM
Dear Sir: AES has a CONDITIONAL permit to make power in our community until 2018, and the people of Redondo Beach must respect AES property rights even if it subjects our children and seniors to asthma and other health risks. Once the AES permit expires, I think you would agree that the property rights of AES are not absolute. We can also agree that Measure "A" rezones AES property AFTER 2018. At any time, AES can do whatever it wishes to maximize profits. AES can sell the property, develop the property, or dig to China on its property -- consistent with Measure A's 60/40 open lands and commercial use plan. This is not a taking. This is a rezoning. Plain and simple. If AES wants to be seen as more than just a corporate bully that puts profits over people's health, why not work with the people and negotiate with the people? Why not go back and ask your Public Relations people to craft a more cooperative strategy? In my opinion, Measure A respects property rights and complies with the law. I am not a land use expert, but I have 21 years of courtroom experience, and I know other lawyers who say Measure A is legal, and I will be the first to volunteer my legal time at the first threat of an AES lawsuit. I also have a call in to the Natural Resources Defense Council legal department. Surely NRDC lawyers have dealt with similar threats by 18 Billion Dollar energy conglomerates. Have a nice day.
David Mallen February 04, 2013 at 08:24 PM
These "Kelly Sarkisian" arguments are classic examples of Public Relations firms that sell the fallacy of "false choice": "either buy the land (City of RB cannot afford) or go bankrupt (City of RB cannot afford). Sorry, but there are many other alternatives. Kelly Sarkisian is a public relations person using is what is called "The Delphi Technique". The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a desired outcome, while giving the ILLUSION of considering public input and giving opinions under the PRETEXT of being interested and accountable to the public. Right, "Kelly Sarkisian"?
David Mallen February 04, 2013 at 08:28 PM
The best way to respond the "Delphi Technique" of the public relations firm/person "Kelly Sarkisian" is to remain charming, stay focused on the true issues, and be persistent. Please do not respond in an "angry" or "demeaning tone" to the public relations firm "Kelly Sarkisian," for then readers will tend to think of "it" as the "victim" and that defeats the larger purpose of informing your neighbors so each of us can make INFORMED CHOICES.
sheri patterson February 04, 2013 at 09:42 PM
You are correct that "Kelly Sarkisian" is a made up profile by AES. There is not a registered Redondo Beach voter with the name Kelly Sarkisian and how would any random resident have as much specific info and darts to throw as this "Kelly" if it wasn't their PR firm behind the curtain. My goodness, if residents only understood the masterful techniques AES and their PR firm are employing to dupe Redondo. Layers upon layers of deception. @ David, to hear that you've researched the facts and taken the time to reveiw the legality of Measure A is great. And more impressive that you so believe AES is fooling residents, that you'd donate your time to help our community. That is exactly the scenario that has unfolded motivating numerous experts in various fields to donate their time to our citizen-led group the past 2 years. It is also why over 500 local families have personally donated to our group raising roughly $95,000 so we could put this solid vision in front of us and forever change Redondo for the better. Thanks for the advice. Nice to once again see more concerned and bright residents endorsing Measure A.
David Mallen February 05, 2013 at 01:36 AM
Thank you Ms. Patters, Mr. Reardon, Mr. Light, Ms. Wike, and others. The key, I think, is to help our neighbors make informed decisions in a respectful way. If voters know the facts, and a majority still vote "No on A", and the CEC approves an AES permit, well then....all I can say is that democracy is messy and I respect the rule of law. With due respect to our City Council and Mayor, it would be nice if they showed leadership and decisiveness. If a plan were in place to defend the legality of Measure A, the residents of Redondo Beach would not be swayed when our neighbor Mr. Pendergrast threatens lawsuits at the drop of a hat. That is why I am hoping to work with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other local lawyers to propose a coordinated litigation plan. In litigation, as in life, a good plan can make all the difference. My two cents....
Robert Keane February 05, 2013 at 01:37 AM
Please tell the truth. Even if Measure A passes the CEC may still direct AES to buid a new plant. Yes, it is true that if Measure A passes the CEC will take an extra step in it's review process, but there is no guarantee. Measure A is bad legislation. I think that plant is ugly and I don't like it either, but this isn't the way.
David Mallen February 05, 2013 at 02:21 AM
Mr. Keane: I believe Mr. Light "told the truth" about Measure A when he wrote, above: "[I]t forces the CEC to do a power needs assessment." I did not read any about any "guarantee" that Measure A would put the nail in the coffin of the power plant. It appears that you and Mr. Light are in agreement on the fact there are "no guarantees," yes?
David Mallen February 05, 2013 at 02:24 AM
Mr. Keane: I have only studied this issue and talked to each of the three candidates for Mayor in the last week. I know all three candidates for Mayor don't like the 60/40 mix of open space and commercial use because they are afraid it won't cover the costs of city maintenance. Please explain why you think Measure A is "bad legislation." I have read the legislation and heard the comments of at least three lawyers who say it is good legislation with built-in flexibility to accommodate the needs of developers. Please explain how you would like to see this go. The more ideas, the better.
Alexander Starr February 05, 2013 at 03:49 AM
David Mallen - The CEC has DENIED a new powerplant permit in 95% of the historical cases where a community has made strong opposition. A zoning change passed by popular vote, as in Measure A, is the strongest message the CEC can receive. This is based on a historical case of over 100 powerplants. Secondly, the power needs assessment will show the power is not needed. 3 new powerplants are coming on-line this year in the LA basin (one is at the beach in El Segundo!) and more on the way. The CEC knows this and testified before our City Council last year that one powerplant can be retired in the LA basin.
Jim Light February 05, 2013 at 05:07 AM
The State Coastal Conservancy Study showed that successful industrial conversion projects averaged a 70% /30% ratio of park to commercial development. In fact they felt we were overly generous. We wanted to ensure we were fair to AES and give them the same density allowed in the harbor. So we gave them the additional land required to build out to the higher limit for those uses that represent foundational businesses and lower traffic generators.
Kelly Sarkisian February 05, 2013 at 10:42 AM
There is no fair in a land grab! Your profession of fair is far from it. "So we gave them the additional land"??? Really, you gave them the land that they already own, you are killing me with those statements. You may want the plant gone, at all costs, but how dare you claim to be benevolent in the way you wrote your land grabbing measure a. many people see through that!
Kelly Sarkisian February 05, 2013 at 11:03 AM
@ David. I am not employed by AES or any affiliate/PR firm. I have no clue about the delphi thing, its not in my wheelhouse, im more simple than that. I have stated many times ( too many) that I do not like or want the plant, but that the negatives of measure a are not a gamble I'm willing to take especially with other alternatives. My level of understanding on this issue has come from careful research. My opinions are my own, I'm offended by your groups fervent and constant accusations of my affiliations to these groups. As of today ive been accused of being AES, a pr firm, a confederate, a fake person and other things. As a lawyer ( if your a lawyer) you should understand that there are generally three sides to every story: your version, my version and reality. I'm hoping my version is NOT closer to reality as my version highlights the negatives (catastrophe) if measure a passes.
Kelly Sarkisian February 05, 2013 at 11:04 AM
...I never said the City should buy the property, I just said the npp people should make an offer to AES or find someone who will. The city shouldn't buy it, it's a bad investment, especially with the npp folks land grabbing and dictating what private property owners should do with their property. Mr Light and friends are turning away business from the city by their anti business actions and heavy handed tactics. Who would want to invest millions in a property that would have the npp folks delineating what they can do with it? Real estate is risk vs reward. The risk with these over fervent folks is too much. I foresee a large vacant lot there in the future surrounded by a bankrupt city.
Kelly Sarkisian February 05, 2013 at 11:19 AM
I'm glad that you think that I'm well informed. I'm am shocked that you assume that a "radom resident" couldn't understand both sides of the issue. If I understand you correctly; if I'm not a npp person, and I have a decent command of the issue with a different view, I must be a paid surrogate? So there are not any well informed residents who disagree with your opinion? That speaks volumes about the opinion you and your friends hold of the MAJORITY of RB residents. Your group with is very loud, but very small. 500 local families is a drop in the almost 70,000 resident bucket. Regarding your experts, even mr light admitted that 2/3 lawyers you cite as experts/ proponents/ volunteers were/are on your payroll. They have also profitted huge from the litigation with the city. Their opinions don't pass the smell test when you weigh their affiliations and profit.
Jim Light February 05, 2013 at 03:40 PM
Repeating the same mistruths over and over again does not make them true. Measure A is not a land grab. It is a rezoning. Nothing in A forces AES to sell or give away their land. It is very fair zoning for AES and if the CEC denies AES' application it represent better value for AES than the current zoning.
Jim Light February 05, 2013 at 03:43 PM
David is not part of our group, Kelly. While you state you have done research, the statements you repeat are not factual. Your version is clearly not closer to reality as you state above because it is built on a set of statements that do not accurately represent the situation.
Jim Light February 05, 2013 at 03:48 PM
Unfortunately Kelly that is not the way it works in the real world. Vision first. Then policy and zoning. Then funding. Measure A is the policy and zoning piece. You can't get funding to build a house on property that is not zoned for residential development. Your statement about me being anti-business is inaccurate. As a businessman I am pro business. But there must be a balance between developer profits and resident quality of life. Parkland is not a bad investment. It increases revenues in many ways. Google the subject and you will find the benefits. Properties near parkland are worth more. Businesses near parkland perform better. Which would you rather buy next to? A park or a power plant? It is not rocket science.
Jim Light February 05, 2013 at 03:54 PM
Thanks David. Yes there are no guarantees that the CEC will deny the permit with Measure A. But given the data that has been produced by the CEC, CPUC and CAISO for the last three years, I am confident the CEC will have a tough time proving power is essential from this specific site without any other alternative. A California auditor report shows that the CEC denied a new plant application in 127 out of 131 times when the plant had substantial conflict with the local zoning and regulations. I do know that if Measure A does not pass, the odds of getting a new power plant approved are astronomically high.
Grant Patterson February 14, 2013 at 02:26 AM
Kelly, why are you so passionate about a situation that you can't even vote on? Look at the roles, i am a registered voter. I don't see you name. If you are so sure about your point of view of a "taking" then let us know where you are getting your research from. I must say thank you though. You are giving Jim and David a great big target to shot at with factual bullets. I am a small business owner with no legal education and i can easily research and understand that this isn't a "taking".
Grant Patterson February 14, 2013 at 02:29 AM
PS. Kelly, you are more than welcome to start the movement to gather momentum to purchase the property from AES if you truly don't want a power plant. I will be the first to help you with that. I will even donate to the cause. You start it and i will help. Mean while i will vote yes on Measure A. We can stop AES from building a new plant then buy the property to make it incredible for the community. The council even said we should look into putting together a regional group to do just this.
Grant Patterson February 19, 2013 at 04:24 AM
Kelly, I like your facebook page. the only like is No on A. The friends are people that would like to have a date with your profile photo. We have all seen how the Mati Teo saga ended up. Being a fake person always catches up to you. If Measure A passes how about you run around the AES sight in a skirt. Don't forget to shave your legs. Might need to shave your mustache as well.
Grant Patterson February 19, 2013 at 04:26 AM
Kelly, I like your facebook page. the only like is No on A. The friends are people that would like to have a date with your profile photo. We have all seen how the Manti Teo saga ended up. Being a fake person always catches up to you. If Measure A passes how about you run around the AES site in a skirt. Don't forget to shave your legs. Might need to shave your mustache as well.
sheri patterson February 19, 2013 at 07:01 AM
Well, let see Kelly. This other citizens' group that opposes AES has a whopping 4 or 5 donations for a total of $450. I think the treasurer of the group and her husband donated so that leaves 3 or 4. We've raised nearly 100K from Redondo families. That may not be much to you in your billion dollar pocketbook, but on top of all the taxes we pay and the fact that our city council could have done what we did had they remember the oath they took when taking office, we wouldn't have had to use our own money and time. Your comment about the attorneys is wrong. We hired one law firm. It was reviewed by others. No other attorney that is a Redondo or SoBay resident has been paid one penny. They've done their own research and came out publicly on this issue out of concern for the grand deception AES was selling via their campaign. And considering the concerned residents that have been involved were not part of any existing group like the Chamber of Commerce long list of members or any other local organization, to rally thousands of residents together in the last year with over 500 personally donating money to help, is significant. Should Measure A fail, in time the entire community will eventually witness the reality of what we tried to warn them about....AES *will* get their new permit, condos will be built on the AES site, and there will be far more development than that site can handle and traffic will become a big problem. That's how our council does things-Just wait.

Boards

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
See more »