.

Blog: Power Plant Phase-Out Initiative in Plain English

Setting the record straight on opponent misrepresentation of the initiative.

I have seen and heard a variety of people, councilmen, organizations and websites misrepresent the details of Power Plant Phase-Out Initiative and its zoning. We know that the “legalese” wording of the zoning makes it difficult to read and understand. Here I attempt to put the facts about the initiative in simple English. 

The initiative prohibits a new power plant

The initiative zoning eliminates power generation as a conditional use. It does allow rooftop solar generation. This allows “green” buildings but not a power plant. Ultimately, the California Energy Commission can override this zoning. But, out of 130 cases, they have only done this four times. It is difficult to believe the CEC would override the will of the voters.

The initiative phases out the current plant and mandates its removal

The initiative allows AES to complete its current contract, which goes out to 2018. It allows power generation to continue until Dec. 31, 2020. This coincides with the date AES must comply with new regulation limiting the use of seawater for cooling. The initiative requires AES to remove the current plant and remediate the property by Dec. 31, 2022. AES previously testified that removal would take up to two years. So the initiative zoning does not allow AES to abandon the power plant in place. 

The initiative replaces the current zoning with a mix of public recreation/open space and commercial/institutional development.

The initiative zoning is based on the Measure G zoning for the harbor. We then added view protection elements based on Dana Point Harbor and Marina Del Rey harbor area zoning. Finally, we incorporated horizontal mixed-use zoning concepts from a variety of cities. Based on the public aversion to the residential component in the original Heart of the City zoning, and the priorities included in the Coastal Act, the initiative does not allow condos or timeshares.

The allowed commercial zoning density is the same as that allowed in Measure G Harbor/Pier zoning.

We took the total development cap allowed in Measure G zoning for the harbor/pier area (about 1.3 million square feet) and divided it by the total acres in the harbor/pier area (about 150 acres). We then multiplied this density by all the acres of the AES property. That came out to about 430,000 square feet, which is the upper limit in the initiative zoning. We then applied the 70/30 public recreation and commercial mix recommended by the 606 Studio study conducted for the State Coastal Conservancy and then we added up to 10 percent additional commercial/institutional development as an incentive. That yielded the 15 to 20 acres of commercial development that is allowed in the initiative zoning. Finally, we applied the high end of Measure G harbor area Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.65 to determine height limits. FAR is a maximum allowed development percentage based on the total square footage of the parcel or project area. Applying a 0.65 maximum FAR yielded a maximum height of two (30 feet) or three stories (45 feet) depending on specific use.  

So the initiative zoning allows AES the same level of development across its property as the Measure G zoning allows in the harbor and pier area. This is a very fair and generous allocation of density, heights and development caps.  Allowing any more density is unreasonable and unrealistic.  

Just as the Harbor/Pier zoning allows more density if the development meets certain conditions, the initiative zoning allows more density for hotel, office or institutional uses. As mentioned before the total commercial/institutional development is capped at 430,000 square feet. If the development has no offices, hotel or institutional uses, the development cannot exceed 130,000 square feet. We did this for two reasons. First, office, hotel and institutional uses generate less traffic. Second, these uses produce weekday customers to the harbor area, which will increase harbor/pier area business revenues during the current weekday low revenue periods. 

The initiative zoning requires preservation and enhancement of views through the AES property.

The zoning establishes mandatory view corridors through property. The first corridor is an extension of the power line Right-of-Way along the north side of the property. Due to the hill along 190th/Herondo, the initiative does allow single-story development in this area. The second corridor is the current view corridor through the old Tank 5 area on the South end of the property. Because there is no hill here, no development is allowed, but a ground level parking lot is allowed in this area. Additionally, the zoning prohibits a virtual wall of development from blocking views through the developed area. The zoning specifies that 20 percent of north to south linear development must be a view corridor through the site. So for every 100 feet of north to south development there must be a view corridor of at least 20 feet through the development. This is the kind of view protection that should have been mandated in Measure G.  

The initiative allows AES lots of flexibility on the placement of any development.

Other than the constraints of the view corridors, AES is free to place the commercial/institutional development anywhere on the property. They can concentrate development in just one area or spread it out. The initiative does not specify which parts of the property must open space or which must be developed.

The initiative zoning includes Coastal Commission mandated “affordability in lieu of fees” for any hotel development.

Certain organizations and individuals whine that this clause hurts developers and they calculate the cost that Crowne Plaza would have had to pay under this condition. The clause makes the developer pay fees if the rooms of the hotel would not meet affordability criteria set by the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission mandated this in the Measure G harbor/pier zoning. In our discussions with them when crafting the initiative zoning, Coastal Commission staff said it would be mandated here as well. This is a Coastal Commission requirement, not ours. It is telling that the people complaining about this requirement in the initiative zoning supported the Measure G zoning which had the exact same clause.  

The initiative allows the reuse of up to 30 percent of the current power plant building.

As we developed the zoning, some residents wanted the ability to keep the Whaling Wall. Others want to keep the older part of the plant because of its gothic/art deco architecture. Other did not. The initiative allows reuse of up to 30 percent of the current plant building if a majority of voters vote for the specific reuse. 

The initiative allows a wide range of public recreational and open space uses.

The initiative zoning does not specify the use of the public recreational and open space portion of the property with one exception. It does require extension of Hermosa’s Greenbelt. Other than that it is wide open. Public soccer fields, baseball fields, swimming pools—allowed. Recreation of the old salt lake—allowed. BMX tracks and skateboard parks—allowed. The one limit of public uses—“conservation areas” cannot exceed 30 percent of the public area.  

The initiative does not "lock in" or "tie the hands" of future Councils.

The initiative requires the City Council to pass the initiative zoning and any Coastal Commission mandated changes. After that, the City Council the flexibility to adjust or change the zoning.   

First, the initiative allows the Council leeway to grant variances. But, beyond that, the initiative zoning “sunsets” itself once the zoning is fully passed. Normally, any zoning passed by initiative would require another initiative vote of the residents for any change. However the state constitution allows any initiative to override this requirement by stating so in writing. We exercised this option in our initiative. Once the zoning is passed by the Council and Coastal Commission, our initiative allows changes via normal city processes except for any changes that cut the public views, cut open space, or reintroduce power generation. So future City Councils can change the vast majority of the zoning using normal city processes.  

The initiative does not “take” AES property.

The initiative rezones AES property and defines what it can do with it. After the initiative passes, the property remains AES’. The zoning change is in the best interest of the community and allows AES reasonable residual value of their property. The initiative zoning passes the Supreme Court tests and is not a taking.

The City can rezone property and does it this regularly. For example, the 1992 change to the General Plan changed industrial and commercial properties to residential zoning. Most high density residential zoning was downzoned at the same time. Industrial businesses on Ruxton Lane sold to residential condo developers based on this zoning change. The Catalina Coffee Company is on property that was rezoned to residential. They cannot expand. This massive rezoning was not a taking. Neither is the zoning initiative.

Some have claimed the initiative is “spot” zoning. This is not true. The initiative eliminates all Power Generation zoning in the City. AES’ property is four parcels over 50+ acres. This is hardly “spot” zoning.

The initiative is good zoning. It is fair to AES. And it is good for residents, good for harbor area businesses and is good for city revenues.

The initiative zoning is balanced zoning with positives for all stakeholders. It allows AES to continue running the plant through the end of its current contract. It allows them plenty of value for their land. It will increase harbor area business property values and increase their revenues. It will increase residential property values in neighborhoods around or within sight of the power plant. It will decrease pollution. And it will add much needed public recreation space for residents... our town is now deemed “park poor” by state standards (even with the beach included) and is getting worse due to population increase and downsizing of parkland and open space by the City Council. The initiative restores views of the harbor that were lost in the 1950s and 1960s. Finally, the increase in property values and increase in business revenues will generate more revenue for the city.

The initiative is good balanced zoning. It is based on the current pier/harbor zoning and allows AES the same commercial density while enhancing the value to the public. It is also our best chance for ridding our waterfront of the unneeded, blighting, polluting behemoth.  

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.

sheri patterson November 30, 2012 at 01:33 AM
DR, if one goes back through 99% of the posts on Patch, any resident will quickly see who does the namecalling-- although many of them post anonymously. Interesting that you are making light of the manner in which AES prevailed on the UUT measure. They conducted a very dishonest campaign. And in fact, every Redondo resident should look into the dirty campaign they just conducted in Huntington Beach in order to stop a good citizen from making public office. Perhaps that good citizen, wasn't willign to participate in the "business as usual" politics/lobbying that AES does?? AES is not a good corporate citizen- just google them. Look for the latest in Newsweek where they're named the top 15 Least Eco friendly Co's in the country. There were some notable weaknesses in the article. And to market this new DIRTY polluting project as "clean" is grossly inaccurate since every pollutant but ONE skyrockets! As to why 4 out of 5 councilmen object to the initiative? Well first of all, when I hear the nonsense coming from Mayor Gin saying "how would any citizen like the city rezoning their house" when as mayor, HE REZONED an entire strip of industrial buildings on Ruxton Lane-- if his disingenuous statements weren't so transparent, please. Mayor Gin's behavior is suspicous. And yes, Diels behavior is spot on for his character. Oops, I mean absence of character. He has lowered the standards of conduct as as elected official. His attacks on Brand are consistently embarrassing.
sheri patterson November 30, 2012 at 01:40 AM
Here's what is most interesting. Aspel, Gin, Kilroy --all 3 were players in Heart of the City--where arrogance and failure to represent constituents was the norm and at all all time high in RB politics. So those 3 paving the way for AES and working against the residents, is par for the course. And 4 of the 5 councilmen are completely out of touch as every other state elected official in our area supports retiring the plant and passing a resolution opposing it. What did those 4 men do? Absolutely nothing. Hmmmm....doesn't take long to scratch your head and see the obvious. Those 4 left residents no choice but to pursue what City staff recommended back in 2004. The reality, sad reality, is that the brightest and most honest politicians are rare and almost non-existent. They are consistently the minority in politics and I sure pray that the election this March changes things. Too many ethical citizens don't want to run for that very reason. And I hope we make a shift in the other direction for a better future for Redondo.
sheri patterson November 30, 2012 at 01:58 AM
DR, residents don't want to be bamboozled by AES lawyers so my critical post was only referring to the pandering to AES. They are an 18 Billion dollar corporation, with the Chinese owning 20%. Do you really think that they care about Redondo Beach? Residents were looking to hear from local attorneys that are helping educate residents. It was your FB Page post that wanted to make clear that poor AES was not able to bring in their attorneys to spin data and scare residents so AES can make more billions while Redondo children inhale 500% more dangerous toxins. Yep, I will stick up for our kids, residents- parents and grandparents, any day. I believe the initiative is 100% legal and it's more than fair to AES. Personally, I do not respect them as a corporation nor do I respect Eric Pendergraft (after reading about the federal investigation and the recorded phone calls they have of him in regards to the "Energy Market Manipulation back in the 2000's"). I believe we have the right to make judgements based on actions. He's the executive of the company and knowingly sends out mailers to residents with deceptive information. They have refused to disclose to residents the INCREASE in dangerous particulate pollution even though their own data from their new CEC application reveals the truth. The residents (NPP) have been accurate about AES' new emissions from Day 1. We have fact checked our data and put forth truthful information. Residents can now make up their own minds...
Jim Light November 30, 2012 at 04:32 AM
DR - Actually, signing the initiative at the time was the only substantive action a resident could take to stop the power plant. The zoning does stop a new power plant and it does require the current one to be torn down. The CEC could override the zoning, but it does this rarely. And we are confident in our statements that the power is not needed. For the CEC to override the initiative they would have to say the power from this site is critical. Their data does not back that up. Even this year with San Onofre offline and big heatwaves, AES has run at just 6.17% of capacity. Either of the two new plants coming on line next summer in El Segundo and City of Industry could pick up that load and still have 80% of capacity left over.
Jim Light November 30, 2012 at 04:36 AM
We gave those councilmen two years to act to oppose the power plant. They did nothing. Who cares why they did nothing. If we don't want a new power plant, we have to do the Council's job. The only chance residents have of ridding our waterfront of a power plant through 2070 is to vote YES on Measure A.
Alexander Starr November 30, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Sheri Paterson wrote: "I hear the nonsense coming from Mayor Gin saying "how would any citizen like the city rezoning their house" when as mayor, HE REZONED an entire strip of industrial buildings on Ruxton Lane-" Spot on! Mayor Gin, any response? Hello?????
Steve Redlich December 12, 2012 at 02:44 PM
I strongly oppose a Majority voting on how someone else should use their land. If you perceive a better use, raise the funds and buy it. Then work with the city to rezone it. Litter (including in the beach and the ocean) is due to a lack of respect for other's property. This measure teaches this disrespect in waves.
Jim Light December 12, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Our land use is controlled by the city. The city changes zoning all the time. Ruxton Lane was converted to from industrial to residential. The Catalina Coffee Company parcel was rezoned to residential. Many of us had our lots downzoned in 1992. Steve Aspel voted against a mixed use project that conformed to the zoning and Mayor Gin eventually vetoed the project because of negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Zoning is meant to ensure neighboring uses are compatible. The power plant is surrounded by incompatible uses on all sides. It is our biggest polluter. It is the biggest blighting influence on the harbor area according to City reports. Why would we invest $100M on our harbor only to threaten its success with a new polluting eyesore that is unneeded? AES has no right to impact surrounding properties and pollute our air. The power is unneeded. It is time for the plant to retire permanently.
DR December 12, 2012 at 04:28 PM
This initiative was written by less than a handful of people, without input from the public, without the same vetting process that would be required if our elected officials were to do it. 60-70% park, 30-40% commercial. Who came up with this? Jim Light & Bill Brand. What makes the citizens think that just because two people draft an initiative that they know what is the best mix of use for the property? Is this the "Best and Highest" use? Will this result in increased traffic? Will this be economically viable? Will the park be yet another tax drain on our city? Will this increase or decrease the value of the property for the property owner? I don't want the power plant either. But, I don't want 60-70% park, nor do I think that the initiative outlines the "Best and Highest" use. VOTE NO ON A, THERE IS A BETTER WAY!
Mike2 December 12, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Jim Light and Bill Brand draft a 28 page initiative and pay people to lie to residents to get it on the ballot then have the gall to call it a "Citizens Initiative." Then there's wolfman who will never trust Oil Power or Utility but then, I bet, goes to his garage and drives his car to the car wash. Mr. Wolfman, perhaps since you distrust these groups so much you should stop using there products. Sheri, you just regurgitate what Jim Light spews. You've even become as long winded as Jim Light, well almost. We need power, our economy and our way of life depends on it. Everybody uses electricity, we have no idea how much we will need in the future or, God forbid, what calamities should befall our fair city ie: Katrina and Sandy. Yet here are a very small group of residents who use the the electricity but don't want the electricity generated "where they live.", Yet, the use that very same electricity to spew their half truths and innuendo on this site. Jim Light you are a hypocrite. From the use of electricity to having to perform an EIR, you are a hypocrite. You claim people who don't agree with you call you names but then turn and call those people uneducated and worse you intimidate them to the point where they wont stand up in public to voice there opinion. You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
DR December 12, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Pretty spot on!
sheri patterson December 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM
Note to residents reading the comments below: The so called Mike2 and DR anonymous writers are AES surrogates. Do not get fooled by the unsubstantiated inaccuracies. There isn't one thing they've written supported by fact. Not one.
DR December 12, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Sheri, I have not been paid 1 dime by AES, I do not want a power plant in my backyard, but I stand by what I said below.
Gerry O'Connor December 12, 2012 at 07:48 PM
Without fail, open and intelligent discussion leads to stronger and better communities. Those who tell the truth always fully identify themselves, proudly stand behind what they say, and are always willing to be held accountable. (As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.) On the other hand, and contrary to the unthinking authors' intent, those who anonymously only repeat the same, many times disproven, blatant misrepresentations and untruths actually only cause intelligent readers to fully discard the very unfounded arguments they put forth from under the cloak of anonymity. Those who so lie (whether intentionally, or, yes, due to being *uneducated*) always do so anonymously expressly to avoid accountability, and thereby have no sincere community interest, and do nothing to move the community forward. So -- a sincere thank you to the anonymous posters for clarifying, to those who have not yet found the time to study this matter, which are the total falsehoods. Job well done! :-))
Mike2 December 12, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Mr. O' Connor, I don't need my kids harassed at school or my wife accosted at the supermarket or at a party only to have Bill Brand publicly disown, at a council meeting no less, the horrible political environment he created and perpetuates. Just one example, Brand was confronted with information how one of his followers had verbally abused another councilman's wife. Brand replied, "They're not my followers." These people are brutal Mr. O'Connor. Be careful, be very, very careful. And the worst, if you somewhat agree with them then become more educated on the subject then disagree with them, goodness gracious, watch your back and sleep with one eye open. But don't take my word for it, simply ask anyone who has publicly disagreed with their narrow point of view. Or, better yet, I'm sure you've read what BBR has spewed about the Chamber. May I suggest you get another point of view and call the Redondo Chamber of Commerce or speak with anyone on their Board of Directors. Don't go in with an agenda, just ask what they think of BBR. I think you will find the Chamber is led by good people who care and whose only crime was taking a stand on the issue and going public with their position.
sheri patterson December 12, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Wow, sure appears now as if Mike2 is Councilman Steve Aspel--- the same exact accusations posted here came straight from Aspel's lips at a council meeting. Geez, AES surrogates may be reaching to higher levels than residents realized. Residents remember The Chambers stance on Measure G and their "push" to get residents to vote for it specifically for "park and recreational open space" reasons. How interesting, that the same reasons are why we are to vote against Measure A. The Chamber is bought and paid for by AES. Nice try. The last organization residents should trust is The Chamber of Commerce. They have been against every measure that was "good" for residents. They protect the big money in Redondo at the expense of the well being of the community.
DR December 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Sheri, You keep spouting off about how everyone is a "surrogate of AES", but you have nothing to back it up. Now you call Mike2, Steve Aspel. You are insinuating that anyone who disagrees with the views and tactics of NPP or BBR must be surrogates, bought and paid for by AES. We can have thoughts different than you and not be bought by AES. That's reality. No on Measure A.
Gerry O'Connor December 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM
"Mike2", whoever you may be, the public likewise doesn't 'need' Councilmembers taking unlimited 'bully pulpit' time publicly and personally discrediting them, without ever managing to substantively address the actual matter at hand. Such is the reception repeatedly offered to scores upon scores of public speakers, after being given just three minutes in which they've respectfully offered alternative viewpoints and approaches based on publicly available facts -- facts that these same Councilmembers have steadfastly refused to even acknowledge. Yet, in the interest of community, the public fearlessly returns -- in person at community meetings, in signed letters to editors and to elected officials, and fully identified in online forums like this, continuing to welcome and engage in substantive, fact-based, intelligent discussion, and unphased by petty, opinion-based offerings and ad hominem attacks of unthinking minds. Thus, "Mike2", attempts to justify anonymity, even so oddly using fear-based, negative tactics you so freely accuse others of using against you, only serve to further validate the grander point: that anonymity has absolutely no place in forward-thinking community discussions. Truth speakers (certainly including "good people who care") need have no such fears -- for they have the facts to protect their integrity. Thank you, once again, for further clarifying what makes a community work, and move forward ... and what doesn't.
L. Campeggi December 13, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Your YES on Measure A vote, March 5, 2013: -phases out the power plant and rezones the property by 2020 -requires tear down of the power plant by 2022 -allows 30-40% commercial and 60-70% recreation/open space -changes land use, NOT ownership - AES keeps their property, with significant economic value Times have changed since 1897. This site is now surrounded by dense residential development, senior housing, schools, hotels, restaurants, offices and a harbor. This is no place for a power plant. If the CPUC decides that AES-Redondo is not needed, the CEC might grant a permit for a new power plant if there is no public opposition. Voting YES on Measure A is critical. If Measure A fails, we get a toxic, polluting, blighting, unecessary, new power plant here, for 50 years. AES' own data shows a DIRTIER new power plant, increasing particulate matter (PM) pollution 1500% annually, running at 73% capacity. PM is the silent killer. Exposure to PM retards children's lung growth, causes asthma attacks, heart attacks and kills twice as many people yearly as breast cancer. Why would we want this here, from an unnecessary power plant, that produced only 6.18% of its' capacity through September 2012? YES on Measure A provides rezoning that will increase revenues for our city and schools. YES on Measure A sends the right message to the state agencies that make the final decision. YES on Measure A is a vote FOR a healthy and prosperous, revitalized Redondo Beach.
Alexander Starr December 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM
DR wrote: " I don't need my kids harassed at school or my wife accosted at the supermarket or at a party...." When you can't attack the validity of the negative impacts of a new powerplant (energy not needed per CEC testimony, pollution will increase dramatically, pollution harms our health, childdren and elderly's health most vulnerable to pollution, it negatively afects city business growth in the harbor area, AEs pays little taxes, power plant lowers property values, etc. etc), DR then attacks the messengers and demonizes them. It's an old political trick. Sounds like Aspel tactics! DR, is that you?? ,PS VOTE NO for ASPEL for Mayor!!! He is the worst of the lot and a pro-AES apologist.
DR December 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM
"Alexander Starr 4:28 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 DR wrote: " I don't need my kids harassed at school or my wife accosted at the supermarket or at a party...." When you can't attack the validity of the negative impacts of a new powerplant (energy not needed per CEC testimony, pollution will increase dramatically, pollution harms our health, childdren and elderly's health most vulnerable to pollution, it negatively afects city business growth in the harbor area, AEs pays little taxes, power plant lowers property values, etc. etc), DR then attacks the messengers and demonizes them. It's an old political trick. Sounds like Aspel tactics! DR, is that you??" ALEXANDER STARR...PLEASE DELETE YOUR POST. YOU ARE QUOTING THESE AS COMING FROM ME, AND THEY ARE NOT. OH, BY THE WAY, "YES ON A, THERE IS A BETTER WAY"
sheri patterson December 13, 2012 at 12:46 AM
LOL. So DR, you know this anonymous poster who calls himself Mike2? You both are anonymous but know each other? Interesting ey? So you are a team working together? Otherwise how would you know that he is or isn't Steve Aspel? Yeah, more attempts to deceive voters...more shady behavior. Definitely characteristic of Aspel.
Alexander Starr December 13, 2012 at 01:03 AM
DR-oops, got confused with Mike2. Sorry! YES ON MEASURE A = NO NEW POWER PLANT
Jim Light December 13, 2012 at 01:16 AM
Mike2, Your fear mongering is laughable. If we have a Sandy or a Katrina, the coastal plants will be the most vulnerable. If we have a major earthquake, we already had liquefaction in the harbor during the Northridge earthquake. And, there are no lines that tie the Power from AES Redondo to our local distribution lines. Your whole fear mongering goes right down the drain. We need power, but there is and will be plenty without AES Redondo. Read thenreports posted on our website. CEC, CAISO and state funded independent consultant reports all show we don't need power from AES Redondo. In fact these reports show we do need AES Huntington and Alamitos. But not Redondo. We don't pay residents to support our side. You seem to have us confused with AES and their Chamber lackies.
Jim Light December 13, 2012 at 01:28 AM
Measure A looks significantly different than our first drafts and concepts. We presented our first concepts in July 2010 in public meetings to get public feedback. We posted the first drafts in late summer and early fall 2011 and accepted comments via email and in person at multiple public meetings until we came to final form over six months later. The current zoning includes input from residents, businessmen, boaters, Commissioners, Councilmen, Coastal Commission staff, And many more. This is a community product. The split of land use is from a State Coastal Conservancy funded study conducted by the Cal
Jim Light December 13, 2012 at 01:34 AM
State Pomona. The density of development is from Measure G zoning for the harbor. We have had developers express an interest in developing to this zoning. If the CEC denies AES' application, Measure A gives AES more value than current zoning. And remember, we can change zoning. But once we allow a new plant, we will be stuck with it through 2070. Why put our $100M investment in our harbor at risk by allowing a power plant, which city reports call the major blighting influence in the harbor?
Mike2 December 13, 2012 at 05:12 AM
I believe we need the power. I've read all of Jim Lights rhetoric and have looked at where our power comes from, places like San Onofre and out of state coal fired plants that need to be retired. And I've spoken with people who know power. I think at the very least the power plant is a good back up, and the most it is essential. I don't want to risk not having power. It's to critical to our way of life. I also do not believe the health risks. If you are so worried about the pollution what are you doing living anywhere near LA County. I dont want a huge park down by the harbor. I think it will bring a bad element. I think it will bring gangs and will look like Veterans Park x 10. I think the park will cost the city a whole bunch of money and will not be used by the citizens of Redondo. I think if the initiative passes AES will sue. I have seen and listened to BBRs legal positions and I think they are weak. I think AES will win the lawsuit and the city will be on the hook for the the difference between the value of a park, which is zero, and the value of a power plant and/or commercial or office or other uses that could go there. This number could easily reach $50 million to $70 million and could go higher, plus the legal fees. AES's offer is to free up 75% of the property for re-development. In exchange they will provide our city, county and region with power. I think that is a good deal.
sheri patterson December 13, 2012 at 05:32 AM
Mike2, AES threatened to sue if the council put the initiative on the ballot. Guess what? They didn't sue. Because they knew they wouldn't win. If you read the history on many of the scenarios where plants were retired, there were threats from the property owner. Once things were said and done, many of the property owners ended up donating part of the land to the City. AES' claims are baseless as the law is on the City's side. The city has all the documented reports to demonstrate the change in "use" of the property meets all the necessary criteria. Furthermore, any judge will see we've given them 430,000 sq ft of commercial with the same density as our new harbor zoning. That is roughly 4-5X the size of the Metlox Shade Hotel development in Manhattan Beach. That will be worth a lot of money and having open space around a hotel and upscale commercial area actually improves the value even more. Been to Terranea lately? You've clearly been getting your facts from folks that have not successfully been a part of successful waterfront or brownfield transformations. Measure A is a fantastic opportunity for both AES and Redondo. It's going to be an exciting day if it prevails.
Jim Light December 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Mike2, AES has offered to develop the rest of their property because they make even more money off it. We will get the traffic of their new development PLUS the pollution and blight from their plant. You state you BELIEVE we need the power but have cited no data to back up that belief. You say you've talked with people who know power and yet you've not cited one name. We have posted the numerous reports that back our claims. You stated you don't believe the health risks when all you have to is look at AES' own pollution projections and google the health impacts of those pollutants. You have cited that a park will be like Veterans Park x 10 and, like the Chamber, raise racist fear mongering. First police reports show your racism claim unfounded. Veterans Park has 5x less crime than Riviera Village. Second, the park need not be configured like Veterans Park. We envision wetlands restoration, jogging trails and sports fields. A mix of Alta Vista and Ballona Creek. residents, their kids, naturalists and joggers... Hardly a threatening crowd. Your argument on the lawsuit supports out position. The commercial density allowed by Measure A is the SAME as allowed in the Harbor. Once the CEC denies AES' permit, this density is what any reasonable person would expect a city to give AES. They have no right to more density than the surrounding area. So Measure A is more than fair for AES. While you are welcome to your opinions, we base our stance on facts.
Steve Aspel December 13, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Good Morning! Just a heads up.... I seldom respond or participate in these discussions. But if I did, I would use my real name. I can assure you that I am NOT Mike2!

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