.

Blog: Republicans, Democrats, Labor Endorse No on A

It is impossible to ignore the impressive and ever growing list endorsing No On Measure A!

The Republican Assembly District Central Committee voted "unanimously" to endorse No On Measure A.

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party voted, by a 78 percent vote, to endorse No On Measure A.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor endorsed No On Measure A.

This in addition to Mayor Gin; four out of five existing Council Members; eight out of the 12 candidates running for office (who have taken a stand); the Chamber of Commerce; a long list of City and Community Leaders representing public safety, education, business, non-profit, beach and ocean related sports and recreation; and on and on and on. 

Together, these groups have trouble agreeing on anything, but they all agree Measure A is bad for Redondo Beach!

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.

Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 06:00 PM
How many of you guys have actually read Meas A? Most people who support this think that it removes the power plant and replaces it with a park. But if you look at the map, it's mostly "coastal preserve". What is that to be used for? See page 19: "(g) Conservation areas. Up to 30% of the public parks/open space acreage may be set aside for conservation areas with restricted public access. This percentage shall be exclusive of any natural water feature. All conservation areas shall be viewable from the accessible areas of the public parks/open space areas in the CP-1 Coastal Preserve zone". So up to 30% will be off limits to the public, but the additional kicker is the statement "exclusive of any natural water feature." That is important.
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 06:05 PM
Here's what it says about this water feature on page 18: "(d) Natural water feature(s): Ponds, lakes, wetlands, streams and other natural water features are permitted and any space they occupy may be applied toward the public parks/open space allocation, so long as these features are not surrounded by private uses that obstruct or obscure visual or physical access. “Natural water features” means features that are meant to recreate or simulate/replicate natural aquatic environmental habitats and processes. It does not include features whose purpose is a water-related recreational use, such as water slides or lazy rivers for floats. Public access on or in the water shall be prohibited except for required maintenance activities or professionally guided educational/research activities. A public swimming pool does not qualify as a natural water feature, but may be allowed as a conditional publicly accessible recreation facility". Notice that there is no mention of how big the Natural Water Feature can be. So if they put a natural water feature that takes up 20% of the land, that means that 50% of the land could be "look but don't touch", similar to Madrona Marsh in Torrance. It will have a fence around it. And it will produce NO revenue at all. It will require dollars to keep up. The way this is written is very deceptive. Environmental nuts will be all for this, but your average Redondo Beach citizen might not support it if they really understand the details.
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 06:42 PM
Good lord. Just got to this section, on page 25: "Section 10. Inconsistent Provisions Repealed. Any provisions of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code, or appendices thereto, or any other ordinances of the City inconsistent with this Act, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed. The amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan, the Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone, the General Plan, the Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Redondo Beach, set forth in Sections 4 through 8, above, express the voters’ intent to eliminate any possible inconsistency between the referenced plans and the referenced zoning. It is the voters’ intent that the zoning regulations contained in Sections 5 and 8 be read and construed in full harmony with the Coastal Land Use Plan, the General Plan and the Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan". In other words, this becomes the end all and be all for land use in the harbor area, and is vague enough to create some real problems.
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Page 26: "Section 12. Judicial Enforcement and Liberal Construction. Any aggrieved person shall have the right to maintain an action for equitable relief to restrain any violation of this Act, or City failure to enforce the duties imposed on it by this Act. The provisions of this Act shall be construed liberally to effectuate its intent and purposes." In other words, this is not strictly construed, so courts have the latitude to interpret this based on the intent of the creators of the act. So what is the intent? Removal of the Power Plant is one thing, and if this passes, that is over as of about 2022. But this law will remain after that to protect the "Coastal Preserve". Say we get into tremendous financial issues due to this, and need to get rid of some of the "preserve" to put in some income/tax bearing facilities. This provision could be a real problem. My point - everybody is talking about this being a "stop the power plant" act, but it's really much more than that. It puts the city in a box, completely, long after the power plant is gone. Its worse than the problem with the power plant, because we don't have to come up with city funds to support the power plant. If things go south, the city will be on the hook for funding upkeep of the "Coastal Preserve".......
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 07:04 PM
Heads I win, tails you lose.....also from page 26 Section 14. Competing Measures. If this initiative measure and another measure on the same subject matter appear on the same ballot, and a majority of the voters vote in favor of both measures but this measure receives more votes than the other measure, this measure alone shall become valid, binding and adopted in its entirety, and the other measure shall be null and void in its entirety. If a majority of the voters vote in favor of both measures but this measure receives less votes than the other measure, only those provisions of the other measure that are in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the provisions of this measure shall control, and all other provisions of this measure shall become valid, binding and adopted. The voters expressly declare this to be their intent, regardless of any contrary language in any other ballot measure. LOL, I think this would fall into the "badly written" category we keep hearing about.
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 07:11 PM
You all better be 100% sure you really want all of the provisions of this thing, including the "Coastal Preserve" part, because this is written to make it almost impossible to change in the future. Page 27 part 1 reduced for size (you can read the whole thing yourself): Section 15. Future Amendments. Any repeal of this Act, or amendment to its provisions, reestablishing or otherwise providing for power generation, or any related or other industrial use on the AES Redondo Beach Generating Plant site (except for marine related light industrial uses), shall be subject to a vote of the People of Redondo Beach at a general or special municipal election, and any amendment to the provisions of this Act decreasing its public parks/open space or its view protection requirements shall also be subject to a vote of the People of Redondo Beach at a general or special municipal election.
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 07:13 PM
Part 2 - you'd better be sure: Section 16. Severability. This Act shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. If any section, subsection, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases and portions shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The voters thus declare that they would have passed all sections, subsections, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases and portions of this Act without the section, subsection, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion held unconstitutional or invalid.
Jim Light February 23, 2013 at 11:39 PM
Yes Bob, this was a request from several of the more environmental residents. It is modeled after the language in Dana Point Harbor zoning. It does not mandate a conservation area, it specifically limits it.
Jim Light February 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Many residents support recreating the Salt Water lake that was there until the 40's when SCE filled it in for the current plant. It is actually a state land mark and is a big part of our history. It was important for the Gabrielino Indians who collected and traded the salt. It was the first business in what was to become Redondo. You can see the state landmark marker in front of the power plant along Harbor Drive. Measure A does not mandate a water restoration, it merely allows it. And there are ample funds for wetlands restoration even through this recession. The commercial portion of Measure A is designed to fund maintenance of the public open and recreational space.
Jim Light February 23, 2013 at 11:45 PM
This is a standard statement. It was in Measure G as well. This becomes the be all and end all for the AES property only. It does not affect any other Harbor area zoning.
Jim Light February 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM
You crack me up Bob. Have you never read one of these before? Both these clauses are standard. The City had both these clauses in Measure G and Measure EE.
Jim Light February 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Once again Bob - standard language. The City had these statements in Measure EE and in Measure G.
Jim Light February 23, 2013 at 11:56 PM
Yet again Bob, you are exposing that you REALLY don't understand initiative law. Normally, anything enacted by an initiative cannot be changed except by initiative. This clause is called a "sunset" clause. And it gives future City Council's the freedom to change most elements of the zoning without another initiative using normal city processes. The only things that it does not "sunset" is the removal of industrial uses and decreasing the view or open space requirements. We did not want future Council's to be bound to where any change would have to go back to an initiative vote. This gives the Council some leeway to negotiate with AES in the future.
Bob Boren February 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Shoot, can't reply to a reply on this system. Jim, my point is that you have what appears to be a limit to 30% for the Preserve, but there is this statement: "This percentage shall be exclusive of any natural water feature.", and in the natural water feature section, there is really no limit that I can see in terms of size. The limits are all on "human" use of the natural water feature. If you can have 30% preserve and you have a "natural water feature" that is, say 30%, you've just made 60% off limits to people. That is not a park. It is "open space", I guess, but it's pretty misleading how you guys talk about this. The wording of the measure leaves things open for Environmentalists to bully their way into taking most of that land over. And with both you and Brand on the council, they will have a lot of weight behind them. I actually like this measure even less after I've read the whole thing. And I'll betcha that most or the people who think they like this haven't read any of it. They are just relying on what you say about this. I know you aren't hiding anything here - anybody can get a copy and read it, but you guys are counting on most people not taking the time to actually read it. Of course that's not that unusual either, I guess. Most of Congress didn't bother to read the Obamacare legislation.....
Bob Boren February 24, 2013 at 12:04 AM
As to the comment about "standard language", yeah, car salesmen use "standard language" to try to include all kinds of stuff in the deal. Bottom line is that Measure A goes WAYYYYYY beyond just stopping the Power Plant. It puts the city into a tight box on harbor area development, and is written in such a way that we could lose most of that land to a "preserve" which will have to be paid for out of tax dollars any time that the meager business opportunities you have in here don't have a good year. And I haven't even addressed the fact that SOMEBODY is going to have to pay AES for all of that land. You think some state agency is going to swoop in and save the day. I'm not very optimistic about that.
Florence Swiger February 24, 2013 at 03:47 AM
You crack me up Bob. You are one of the most argumentive and cbstenate person I've encoiuntered in awhile. You have information given to you over and over again and you don't absorb it and still ask the same questions. I have collected signatures for 2 referandums and 2 initiatives and read every one more than once before obtaining the signatures. You, my man are just one obstenate citizen, whose never read a legal paper, initiative or referandom before. Yes, they must cover every possible senario. The city attorney has summarized it very well. Maybe you should read his synopsis again, if you haven't read it at all and it would be easier for you to understand.
Bob Boren February 25, 2013 at 07:43 PM
Hey, Florence, looks like the League of Women Voters has some of the same concerns that I do: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS UNABLE TO TAKE POSITION ON MEASURE A: "The League of Women Voters has strong positions on the environment and on energy that we developed following extensive study. However, the scope of the very complex Measure A involves issues of power, pollution, property rights, financial impacts on a city and areas that reach far beyond the League energy positions. Therefore, the LWVBC is unable to take a position on this Measure." Barbara Arlow, Janelle Freeman LWVBC co-presidents I suppose they are just "obstenate" too, eh?
Jim Light February 26, 2013 at 06:18 AM
Not sure what you are driving at. They have a position on energy not on the other items - so they remain neutral. We oppose the power plant because of its pollution and financial impacts and because we don't need the power.
Bob Boren February 26, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Nice try at a spin. They have similar concerns about this over reaching disaster as I do, and as I pointed out in my most recent posts.
Grant Patterson February 26, 2013 at 09:19 PM
Mary, You will not get 500 lashes but rather questions asking why you think Measure A is not the way to go. If you have spent a lot of time on it as you say you have then give me some insight that i might be missing. Blogging about your position without reason is fine but the people that are undecided want to know why. But maybe you just like to see your name on Patch? If you want to get rid of the power plant then how do you propose we do it. I don't like all the details of Measure A either but it is all we have. If the CEC approves the AES license they will start the process of getting a contract. If they get a contract they will build a power plant, end of story. There will be no negotiating with them after they get approval. This is simply the facts and what the opponents to measure A are missing. If you mean what you say and don't want a power plant then what is your option to get rid of it? You can't listen to most of our current elected officials, they have already or will be taking AES money. I hate to say it that way but just wait, if AES wins and get a new plant i will put my word on it that Kilroy will be the first to accept their money. He didn't say he won't accept political campaign money from AES he only said he won't accept it while the power plant issue is still on the table. This is the same politics that are played in DC that we all cringe about but now it is on our local government. I am not looking to change you but make you think.
Gregory Ballard February 26, 2013 at 09:50 PM
Mary , my point all along has been keep the plant and develop every remaining foot of property. Stick to your guns , your opinion has as much value as anyone else.
Grant Patterson February 26, 2013 at 09:53 PM
Mary, If I was an $18 billion company on the waterfront in someone’s backyard, I would know when I bought the property that someday I may not be able to blight and pollute their community. Therefore I would factor this into my purchase of the property. In politics we don't get to vote for 100% of what we want and like because we are voting for something that someone else put together as well as something that has to be a happy median. The details of Measure A I don't like are irrelevant to the bigger picture of getting rid of the plant. I don't berate people that hide their names I just laugh because it lessens their validity. Several months into this debate we finally hear from some that they are being paid by AES, doesn’t that seem a little questionable? If the CEC overrides the Measure A zoning and AES is given a contract for power there is no question they will still come to the table, they will still have 30 acres of property that they will want to sell or develop. Without the cooperation of the residents they won’t be able to rezone it for higher value uses. I don’t know what you do for work but if you want to get a raise from your company you better bring some cards to the table. If Measure A fails then we have folded our cards and we will get what they give us. They are a power generating company, that is their only objective, build a new power plant. They loved “hear of the city” because it gave them a new plant and almost 3000 condos.
Grant Patterson February 26, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Mary, So, Greg has said just what I think all of the opponents to measure A want to say but is scared to say. “Develop every remaining foot”. If you want more, more, more then vote no. If you want something that we can be proud of, vote yes. To the park part of your argument, the city doesn’t have to purchase the property. Following your argument, why wouldn’t Terrenea build out every foot of their property? Because they know to attract the clientele they want they have to make the property attractive to their clientele. I would personally love to see soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts and volleyball courts. This has been proven time and time again to be in great demand in the area and very short supply. AES or whoever would purchase the property from AES can lease the remaining acres out to an organization that would manage the property. This would keep the undesirable crowd that some people seem to be worried about out and give our local residents a place to play. Do you have any idea how much money is taken out of Redondo and the south bay every weekend because of club sports? I would love to go 1 location and watch kids play sports and then take them to a local restaurant for dinner and ice cream.
Gregory Ballard February 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM
With any publically traded company, stock value is king. Your wanting it to be different here but, the reality of all companies operate the same way.
Gregory Ballard February 26, 2013 at 11:39 PM
I think it funny just how many people seemingly are on the AES payroll? Just because of having a different viewpoint. Again, the tax base and the employment base would be a huge factor for all of the residents of Redondo. Think about all the money that would come into the City, why not imagine the ways it would change things? Apartments would rent, homes would sell, restaurants, dry cleaners and most existing businesses would see the benefits as well. It would be the ripple effort in the form of ten's of millions, all in Redondo. Allot of people I'm sure dislike my point of view but, I bet more than a few see the value as I do.
David Mallen March 03, 2013 at 02:43 AM
The one thing Mirassou and friends are overlooking here: If the CEC denies AES the new permit to make power, AES and its real estate friends have every incentive to tear down the power plant quickly, clean up the brownfield site, get a developer and a plan on board, get your pals on City Council to green-light the project, and put it to the voters long before 2021, when Measure A begins. AES and the developers could do the same thing after 2021 as well, with city council and voter approval. Wake up and look at the INTERESTS, not the issues. You guys are all whining like the sky is falling when you should be getting your investors and your developers together with a plan regardless of whether Measure A passes. At least that is what the land use attorneys tell me. The land use lawyers are laughing at this lawsuit nonsense and wondering: If Measure A passes, why doesn't AES just giftwrap a good development plan, maximize that land value, and move on to the next deal. Redondo Beach is fly poop in the AES universe. AES just wants a little more commercial meat on the bone. Right, Mirassou?
David Mallen March 03, 2013 at 02:46 AM
Mary: If AES gave me the land, I would lease it out to developers who would put profit-generating recreational activities like state of the art sports fields and musical amphitheaters and outdoor food concessions and have income streams for the City for the next 100 years. Use your charms to get me that land deal, Mary.
David Mallen March 03, 2013 at 09:12 PM
From a conversation I had yesterday morning with one of the finest coastal land-use attorneys in California: "If AES is foolish enough to sue after Measure A passes, the Court will dismiss the AES case within a few months and order AES to pay the City's attorneys' fees under the anti-SLAPP laws of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16." Don't shoot the messenger (me). The expert land use lawyer said it (not the labor and employment lawyer and mediator). Enjoy the beautiful Sunday in Redondo Beach.
seonett May 11, 2013 at 07:14 AM
ting tong
seonett May 11, 2013 at 07:20 AM
Thanks for exploring your opinion. http://goo.gl/9yQp1

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