Council Unanimously Passes Anti-Power-Plant Resolution

The Redondo Beach City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to oppose  the construction of a new power plant to replace the current AES Redondo Beach generating station on North Harbor Drive in South Redondo Beach.

The council also voted to appropriate $200,000 from the city's general fund to pay for the city's role as an intervenor in the California Energy Commission's new power plant permitting processes; to direct Mayor Mike Gin to explore the creation of a task force to find alternative uses for the AES property and come back in two weeks with a report; and to direct City Attorney Mike Webb to come back in four weeks with language for a moratorium on new construction on the AES property.

The current AES Redondo Beach plant must be retrofitted, retired, rebuilt or obtain special exemptions to continue operating beyond 2020 due to a new ban on once-through cooling, where ocean water is pumped into the plant to cool the superheated steam used to spin the turbines and generate electricity. Parent company AES Southland has indicated that it wishes to rebuild the plant and has submitted an application to do so with the CEC.

• Complete coverage: AES Redondo Beach Power Plant Debate

AES officials say the new plant will run more efficiently, have a smaller footprint and provide flexibility for the grid when energy from renewable resources isn't available.

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the plant will continue to decrease property values and blight the waterfront, despite a $300 million revitalization effort. Additionally, they point to AES' application and say a new plant will run more often than the current one, and thus produce five to 15 times more particulate pollution.

Read the Redondo Beach Patch live blog from the meeting below. Entries are in chronological order. Please forgive any typos or misspellings!

7:52 p.m.: Time for the power plant! Assistant City Manager Marissa Christiansen introduces the agenda item.

7:56 p.m.: "At the time the council felt very strongly that regardless of the results of Measure A that they wanted to move forward with the process … for the future of that site," says Mayor Mike Gin. He notes that the discussion started again on March 19.

"I believe that we had agreed that we do want to become an intervenor," says Gin. "Tonight is the discussion and a continuation of that discussion, first of all to determine how much money we'd like to spend and second to consider a resolution with regards to a position."

He notes that the power plant has been discussed in the community for "quite some time." He calls the California Energy Commission process a "wonderful opportunity" to engage with AES and the CEC. He points out the blue folder items—there are three resolutions. One crafted by Gin last July, one from City Attorney Mike Webb and one from the Redondo Beach Unified School District Board of Education.

Gin says this is an opportunity to work collaboratively with the property owner, as its says in his resolution.

8 p.m.: Councilman Matt Kilroy wants a clarification from city staff as to the budget—if there's leftover money, will it have to get re-appropriated next year, or does it just carry over?

City Manager Bill Workman says the money will have to be re-appropriated each year.

Kilroy wants to know if $200,000 is adequate to commit for what the council wants to do as an intervenor between now and June, when the fiscal year ends.

Workman notes that the application still is not data adequate. "It could be as late as May or June—we're awaiting additional action on the part of the AQMD ... before they could be on the CEC agenda to initiate the process," Workman says.

Webb notes that the earliest the AES application will be on the CEC agenda will be May, as the application is not on the April agenda.

8:05 p.m.: Webb notes that Carlsbad spent a lot of money, and they would have prevented a power plant if the CEC had not overridden their zoning. Huntington Beach spent less than $200,000, and they'll get a power plant.

He says that up to 90 percent of his time would be spent on the AES project if the city opts to minimize the use of outside consultants.

Diels moves to accept the first staff recommendation—appropriate $200,000 from the fiscal year 2012-13 General Fund balance to the AES Intervenor budget.

8:08 p.m.: Councilman Steve Aspel asks if the council was going to be an intervenor with or without  the passage of Measure A. "It's not really to fight the project, it's to protect the city's interest in it all," Aspel comments.

Webb says the city needs to decide if it's an intervenor to try to stop the plant, or an intervenor to try to mitigate the effects of a new plant on the city.

The third option, to spend as little money as possible, was unanimously rejected by the council, Webb says.

8:10 p.m.: "I'll assume AES isn't going to put their project on hold" while the city tries to come up with zoning that would work for all parties, Webb says.

How long would it take for the $200,000 to run out? Aspel asks Webb.

The city attorney notes that he'll plan on only spending $200,000. "It's going to be very staff intensive; we'll only get those experts that we need between now and June," Webb says.

8:15 p.m.: "One of the decisions this council needs to make is whether or not they're going to oppose the power plant," says Councilman Bill Brand. "We're putting the cart before the horse in the sense that we should be voting on a resolution to oppose it...

"I don't think there's a question in anyone's mind—the majority don't want a power plant there," he says.

He says the CEC will approve the power plant if the energy is needed.

"If we're going to oppose it, we have to create a conflict with our local ordinances, regulations and statutes," he says. "Right now, there are no conflicts ... The chairman of the energy commission told me that over two years ago."

Brand notes that he first brought this up 2 1/2 years ago. "The reason Measure A happened is because of the inaction ultimately of the council," he says.

He's "happy" to go along with approving the $200,000.

8:18 p.m.: Brand asks why the city is going to spend $200,000 if it's not going to oppose the plant? "I really think we should consider the resolution first because that's going to drive where we go from here," he says.

8:21 p.m.: "You just said the same thing, 10 times, over and over and over again," Councilman Pat Aust tells Brand after he finishes speaking.

Brand laughs and proposes a friendly amendment to Diels' motion, adding the resolution opposing the plant to the original.

Diels says he doesn't approve the resolution as written, so he wants to stick with the $200,000. "As the city attorney already described, we're going to have intervenor status," he says. He respectfully declines the friendly amendment.

Aust: "Let's go with the $200,000. That's the budget for the intervenor process. We've decided we want to be an intervenor." He wants to move on.

8:27 p.m.: Delia Vechi is the first one called to the podium. Gin reminds everyone that this item is just discussing the $200,000 budget allocation.

"I don't like to talk about money. Approve the $200,000," she says.

Diane Lieberman concurs. "I do urge for the intervenor budget," she says. She notes that the District 1 and mayoral races are still up for grabs. "I believe this is the time to step up in enacting all the whole package for this power plant opposition."

Ilia Friend says she agrees with Brand in one aspect—he does agree that there should be a vote right now "of whether or not you oppose or are not going to oppose a power plant." "We voted specifically ... that we shall not phase out the existing power generation ... We voted against that," she says. "I expected most of you on the city council to respect that."

She says she respects Brand, though she doesn't agree with him: "I think that all of you should take a stand—are you going to support the power plant or not. Are you going to support the vote of the people of Redondo Beach?" She says that nearly every person that she spoke with that was against Measure A was for the power plant.

"Let the CEC decide whether we need it or not," she says. "We've already made our vote; we've made our decision."

She wants the CEC to tell the city if the power is needed. The city should not intervene, in her opinion.

Shauntee Friend: "I really think there's a real meta-message going on here ... You are opposing the will of the people of the power plant from being there, and it really, really ticks me off."

"This is what revolutions are made of, when you don't do the will of the people," she says. She is kind of upset.

8:28 p.m.: "Measure A had nothing in it about do you want a power plant or no power plant," says Aust. He notes that he proposed that, but it got vetoed. "Measure A was do you want the zoning change that would allow the commercial and the park and no industrial ... Just for a clarification, there is no revolution going on here because we're not attacking the voters."

The motion passes unanimously.

8:32 p.m.: Aust motions to "wordsmith" the resolution. He asks if a moratorium will trigger a needs analysis from the CEC.

"It gives us the ability to argue that," says Webb. "There's no specific case law on that point."

Initially, CEC staff said that a moratorium was sufficient; however, they later changed their minds. It was never decided by a court or commission because by the time it came back, Carlsbad had changed its zoning.

"The only reason to do that is if you are committed to potentially changing zoning," Webb says. "What it gives us is the ability to argue ... the council is looking at a zoning change, in which case a power plant would be inconsistent."

Aust and Webb continue to discuss this.

8:38 p.m.: Aust moves to wordsmith a resolution, but withdraws the motion because he doesn't know which resolution he wants to wordsmith.

8:43 p.m.: Kilroy reiterates that people who were against Measure A weren't necessarily for a power plant.

"Even AES has said that they are open to alternate uses for the site," he says, noting that the city should leave as many doors open as possible. "I don't believe that having a resolution or acting as an intervenor impedes any of that."

He moves to approve the mayor's resolution from last July, but he wants to remove the final two paragraphs, which talk about what will happen if a power plant will be approved, and add information from the city attorney's suggested resolution.

Kilroy wants to consider the moratorium separately.

8:47 p.m.: Brand seems to agree with the wordsmithing, but also notes that the city should engage with the Public Utilities Commission, the California Coastal Commission and the Air Quality Management District.

"Well, you gave us something to start with. We are taking a stand," Aspel says. "The fact that we're considering this item means we're giving this serious thought to both sides."

"The resolution ... doesn't mean that Measure A won. Measure A lost. It was close, but that doesn't mean ... close doesn't count. It still lost," Aspel says. "It wasn't about yes or no on the power plant, it was yes or no on the zoning."

Aspel says he thinks it's premature—he thought AES was going to come back with other numbers. "I think we should have mayor and council and subcommittee and have Larry Kosmont invited to the table and have AES invited to the table and determine what they really want," he says. "There's some happy medium between the Heart of the City plan and the power plant."

Aspel is not interested in spending a ton of money on the issue.

Webb says that the council can direct Webb to come up with a moratorium.

9 p.m.: "The CEC is going to do what they're going to do, with or without Measure A, with or without us," says Aspel. "To have AES move away, would be to make it so that they get their revenue (and) the city gets their revenue."

He says the resolution is OK. He's more concerned with the moratorium.

"That's the last thing I want to see—no Heart of the City, no condos," Aust adds. He says a zoning change will be necessary no matter what.

Diels' turn again. "I would like to see us work to help find an exit strategy for AES. I think our community would be better off if we could find an alternative."

Al Meisner is raising his hand. Now both his hands. Diels is finding it "quite distracting" and is going to wait for Meisner to put his hands down.

"You made your point, Al," says Brand. Meisner lowers his hands.

"If we really want the power plant to go away, we can buy the land," Diels says. "If you want to control your destiny, control the land."

He calls the "concept of forcing a needs analysis" "disturbing" because if the CEC determines the power is needed, the city gets a power plant. Game over. He wants to work with AES or find the money to buy the property, and he wants the resolution to include those concepts.

He suggests a special assessment district that would include Hermosa Beach to fund the purchase of the property, as well as oil reserves and other mineral rights under the site. A third option is zoning that's beneficial to AES so a power plant is not necessary.

9:18 p.m.: Diels is concerned about the word "negative"—if the city admits the negative impacts, what other city would want the power plant? He also said that Redondo can't force another city to eat its dirt. "It might be that there's a community somewhere on the grid or somewhere, frankly, elsewhere in the city that might be a better place for a power plant," he says. "We're building hotels where a power plant should be, and we're ... discussing permitting a (power plant) where a hotel should be."

He says "not everything is bad about this power plant," though "it would be nicer for the community if it weren't on the waterfront."

He notes that there is legislation to overturn the State Water Resources Control Board's ruling that would ban once-through cooling, which the current plant uses. He wants to add a note in the resolution that says it's not necessary that the power plant be located next to the water.

"I think we should be very careful about talking about how bad this thing is," Diels says. "My scenario is about working with AES to help them find an exit strategy, and it has been all along."

Diels asks to add a note about how Redondo Beach is dedicated to working with the property owner to find economically viable alternative land uses that will provide alternatives to a power plant to the resolution. "That leaves everything open," he says.

Kilroy says it's OK. Brand has to think about it. He agrees with working to find an economically viable alternative; however, he doesn't want the city to be pigeonholed.

Here's the paragraph that will be added:

"Whereas the city of Redondo Beach is committed to working collaboratively with the property owner to attempt to find economically viable alternative land uses to provide incentives for uses other than a power plant."

Diels is still concerned about talk of negative impacts; Webb says that if that's removed, a moratorium isn't valid. "I think strategically it's just a bad idea to say it's just an awful thing to have," Diels says. "I'm not comfortable with that.

"I think that we should project that this is something that has been good for our community in the past, that we've had it for 100 years, it would be nice if we didn't have it now and it would be nice if it were in somebody else's neighborhood."

Kilroy declines to alter his motion. "I think it's necessary," he says. "I don't think the issue for me is expecting somebody else to take the power plant ... It's an all-in bet that the CEC makes a determination if the power plant is necessary ... I've put all my chips on black that the CEC is not going to make the determination that the power plant's needed as a public necessity so I'm completely at ease going down that road.

"If by some change that the CEC changes their whole outlook on energy needs, so be it."

9:24 p.m.: Diels says he asked Pendergraft if a needs analysis would help or hurt AES' application.

"He said that a needs analysis would help their cause to build a power plant," Diels says. "Why force a needs analysis if you can explore other alternatives first?"

Brand says "the game is not over if the CEC issues them a license." He says he's spent a long time on the phone with Carlsbad, where the CEC overrode local zoning to award NRG approval for construction of a power plant on that site. "There's still not a power plant there, and there's still a good chance that there will not be a power plant there because the (Public Utilities Commission) will not give them a long-term license," he says. The PUC looks at suitability of the site for a new power plant. "Large, polluting, gas-fired power plants in densely populated areas located on the coast are not the future of energy production in California."

"The Heart of the City did not get rid of the power plant," Brand says. "(The power plant) is very much a negative impact, and everybody knows it."

9:31 p.m.: Brand is excited that it looks like an anti-power-plant resolution will pass. He's talking about vision. "If you don't have a power plant, then there's a very good chance you're not going to have the power lines, either," he says.

Diels reiterates that forcing a needs analysis could potentially erase the vision to work with the property owner to find alternative uses for the site because the needs analysis could determine a power plant is necessary.

There's some back-and-forth between Diels and Brand about this.

9:40 p.m.: "My point all along has been we should control our own destiny. This concept of trusting regulatory authorities to do the things that we want for our community I don't think is in our best interests. We want local control," says Diels.

Kilroy says he likes to go down more than one path simultaneously to find a resolution. "It's a much higher bar for them to jump over than where it's at right now," he says. Forcing a needs analysis sets the higher bar. "That does not preclude any collaborative (discussion) with AES."

Aspel wants to hear from the public and vote on it.

"I just don't want to pursue a path that will close doors," says Diels.

9:42 p.m.: Public comment! First up is Tony Czuleger. "I think that a lot of this discussion for this power plant moratorium—first I think it should be tabled," he says.

Gin says discussion right now is only on the resolution.

"They don't have to tear the power plant down. They can use the existing power plant as-is," Czuleger says. He implies that you can use the plant without once-through cooling. Czuleger says that the city should work with AES and that he agrees with Diels. He thinks a moratorium would be closing the door to working with AES.

9:48 p.m.: Jess Money who "comes out of a background in the movie business" talks about a film financier who doesn't deal with agents and has an infamous one-page, eight-line contract with lawyers. He wants a resolution that basically says "the city of Redondo Beach is irrevocably ... opposed to a new power plant on the AES site."

He calls Diels a "lying liar" who is "trying to coerce some legal wording in here."

"This is not ... a question of whether a plant is going to be built here or in somebody else's backyard. It's not a NIMBY situation," Money says.

Now it's time for Al Meisner to speak. "Boy, what a far cry from the last city council meeting I attended," he says. Brand was not there. "I still see the same dancing around the issue. It's not whether or not you're right or you're wrong. It's whether or not you stand for the people. The people have spoken."

He points to Kilroy, Diels, Gin, Aust and Aspel and says he heard opposition to the power plant "loud and clear."

"Where are you?!" he shouts.

9:55 p.m.: Vechi says she's changed her speech four or five times based on what they've said tonight. She says it's very simple—they shouldn't continue wordsmithing. "Mr. Diels, you confuse me," she says. She compliments Kilroy and Aspel. "Please, this is your legacy. Think (of) the kids. Think (of) the residents ... Please make a resolution."

Oscar Cruz, a 10-year Hermosa Beach resident who is looking to move to South Redondo Beach, would like to offer an exit strategy for AES. First, he wants to ask a question: "Would you be willing to consider to have a third party intervene on behalf of the city council by purchasing AES' 50 acres for the fair market value of the property?"

He says he was at the last debate meeting where AES Southland President Eric Pendergraft made a statement that implied that a check from the city would solve the problem of the power plant. "I did have a great idea, and I wanted to share it with you, but I obviously don't have the expertise to articulate my point of view," he says after a long pause. "It was basically an idea of me having this idea of selling intellectual property to a company to gain $1.3 billion and to use that $1.3 billion to buy the property from AES so that they would walk away from the table and that would allow the city to do what they would like to do."

Gin suggests that Cruz send the council an email with his idea, since he's out of time in the public comment portion. Gin thanks Cruz for taking the time to come down.

10:06 p.m.: A district three resident whose name I didn't catch says he applauds the resolution. "That was excellent committee work," he says. He thinks it will spare Redondo from the court case of Macpherson from

Another resident says he doesn't know if this is "Total Recall" or another movie. Aust throws out "Groundhog Day" and Aspel says "Nightmare on Diamond Street." He talks about an advisory vote eight years ago on the "Village Plan."

"If we have the opportunity of creating a deal here, I definitely don't want to let some knuckleheads up in Sacramento make that deal for us," this man says. He calls downzoning "negative crap." "What would it take to get this company out of here?" he says.

Monica Jeffrey says the city should "just work with AES rather than fighting against them every step of the way."

Dinah Larry, the chairman of the board of the Chamber of Commerce, says the Chamber opposes the resolution and the moratorium. She says the chamber supports the CEC process, a needs analysis and working with AES, and that the chamber is offering a few edits of the city attorney's resolution, which isn't being considered.

Another woman gets up to the podium.

"The art of the deal is having cards to play, and I believe your inaction and your lack of action is leaving you without cards to play," she says . She says that AES is playing the game better than the council is. "The inaction is exactly what AES wants because you're making the deal very sweet. You're making it easy for them to continue to do business the way they've done business."

She encourages the council to take action. "Don't buy into that you're getting a new, modern power plant," she says. "You're getting the easiest next step up."

10:13 p.m.: Lezlie Campeggi says she wants to dovetail on what the previous speaker said. "You have no strength if you have no resolution," Campeggi says. "You have no strength if you have no moratorium."

She is in favor of the resolution, and she is in favor of the city negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness.

Eric Pendergraft is up at the podium. "As has been discussed tonight, Measure A was defeated," he says. He notes that 70 percent of the precincts voted down the measure. "If this were like an Electoral College type of vote, Measure A would have gone down by a landslide."

"Our position has been the same for quite awhile—we think it's prudent and responsible" to continue with the CEC permit, but still work with the city. He says the new plant is "better in every way." He's clearly not a fan of the current resolution. "In the spirit of collaboration, we have two suggestions—one is that the title is amended ... to include your desire to work together," he says. The second would be to add the collaboration note to the "be it resolved" section of the resolution.

"We think that would send a very compelling message and important message to our corporate office in Arlington that would be helpful," he says.

AES is not opposed to a needs analysis—he believes that it will confirm that a plant is needed.

If Pendergraft is not opposed to the needs analysis, then why is he opposed to a moratorium? asks Kilroy.

Pendergraft says they support the needs analysis, just not the way the city is going about getting one. He says people should study the situation at San Onofre carefully.

Brand asks if AES will request a needs analysis from the CEC.

"We are currently evaluating how that would be responded to," says Pendergraft. First, AES was going to ask the city to request it, but they realized it could set a precedent.

Brand notes that he's looked at the "no San Onofre scenario."

10:19 p.m.: In response to a question from Brand, Pendergraft says they spent about $350,000 opposing Measure A. Brand points out some of the campaign finance forms point to AES spending $400,000.

"Measure A is done," says Gin, cutting Brand off.

Gin asks Kilroy if he'd be willing to follow AES' recommendations on the resolution; Kilroy says the public comment portion should finish before they consider the edits.

Sean Guthrie says that every action taken by the city council has supported the power plant. "The only opportunity in the last 13 years was, as Tom Conroy mentioned ... was the Village Plan," he says. "Because that didn't go anywhere, we ended up with Measure G." Measure G allowed a power plant. "Every step of the way, we've missed an opportunity to phase-out that power plant."

Guthrie recommends the council revisit the Village Plan.

Kilroy asks if Guthrie would be willing to serve on a group that would help craft zoning to please AES. Guthrie says yes.

10:19 p.m.: The resolution opposing the power plant passes unanimously.

10:33 p.m.: Kilroy wants to get a group of stakeholders together to come up with new zoning. "We need to have a very short timeline," he says.

Brand says he agrees, and notes that he brought up "the idea of a power plant task force a long time ago." He says it would be a "big mistake" for the council to meet with AES, come up with something and expect everyone to buy in. "I think you get buy-in by engaging with the community," he says.

Gin says he'll come up with a task force. Brand supports this. Workman says that AES should propose what level of collaboration they're willing to go through.

"AES has to be at the table on this or I won't support it at all," says Aspel. "If we're going to have a meeting with a subcommittee and the citizens, that's beautiful, but we've got to have a sunset clause on it, and we've got to have AES at the table."

Aspel suggests everyone take a "pinky oath" to never mention Measure A again.

Kilroy also says AES should be involved, even if they're not directly involved in the task force. "Obviously, the economics have to be put in there somewhere ... and AES has to come up with some sort of idea of what they're looking for economically," he says.

Diels reiterates that he doesn't want to pursue any strategies that will close doors. "The closest thing we have to a committee that is working with something that is generating economic viability is CenterCal's meetings with the public, but that came from CenterCal to the public with some city staff time," he says. The city has nothing that deals with private property.

He says a committee modeled on a task force created to deal with traffic congestion is not the solution. "I think it's premature to even propose some task force before we even know what we're talking about," he says. He proposes the council ask city staff to work with AES to come up with a form of collaboration.

10:39 p.m.: "It's been 15 years we've been working with AES, and they haven't come up with something they want yet," Aust says. He says he went to all the Heart of the City meetings. "It is way too early to even get there."

The city should meet with AES and go from there.

"I think AES is key ... in this issue," says Gin. "I think a preliminary step of engaging with AES and determining sort of a framework in terms of what would work is important."

Nevertheless, he says the task force would be a key opportunity that would be very educational in terms of land use opportunities and such. He once again notes that AES is not a developer.

"What we have to do is engage the public in some way," says Brand. "It's not like the Heart of the City ... when we had our growth management task force, we did have experts come in and explain to us what was at the table."

10:56 p.m.: Brand suggests that Gin come back in two weeks with a refined idea.

Gin agrees.

Kilroy says consideration of a moratorium is "absolutely essential"; however, you have to be moving forward while the moratorium is set. A citizen's task force to examine zoning would be moving forward.

They're now discussion a moratorium and a task force. Meisner gets up and dances out of the room to tell the council that they're dancing around the issue; however, Aspel sees this as disrespectful.

"We are going out of our way, even though (Measure A) lost," says Aspel. "For this to keep going on and on like this, trying to find ways, and then you get morons accusing me of doing dances ... let's get this done the way we're paid to do."

"Now is the time to work on this issue—it's just hte process that keeps getting screwed up and delay," Diels says, noting that he agrees with Brand. "We passed a resolution to work collaboratively with the property owner."

There's a motion on the table for Gin to come back in two weeks to come back with a framework for a citizen's task force.

Kilroy says Measure A "brought things to a boil." He says the council needs to take action now.

11:13 p.m.: John Parsons gets up for public comment. "This discussion is exactly what I proposed to people that would happen if Measure A failed," he says. He notes that this discussion should have happened a year ago.

"I think it's important that we understand the timeline that we're up against here," says Parsons.

Conroy is up again. He wants to know how much AES is willing to sell the property for—if it's too much, they shouldn't waste the citizens' time.

Vechi is up again with a new speech. "We need to send a message once and for all ... and say we are not enemies of AES. We only care about our city," she says. "We only want to get back our waterfront and the health of our city."

Mark Hansen of the King Harbor Boaters Advisory Panel is up to speak. I don't think he will be asking for a boat ramp tonight. He says the panel has no position on the repowering of the plant; however, he says that they are interested in what happens to the land left over if a plant is built.

Hansen also points to the staff reports from last July about a comprehensive planning process, which included community workshops and planning and harbor commission meetings. He recommends this approach.

Pendergraft is up again. He's not prepared to talk about AES' response to a citizen-led task force; however, he's fully supportive of engaging the community. He wonders if the motion on the table is flexible enough to allow for other processes.

AES will likely need a couple of months before they can start engaging the public, Pendergraft says. "We've got some internal constraints and expectations that we're just going to have to work with."

Campeggi is up again. She says that there is still a gap that needs to be bridged between the sides regarding the power plant, and that AES is not the one to bridge the divide. Meisner's behavior was inappropriate, she implies; however, it's a bully tactic to say you'll change your vote because of one person's behavior, she says.

Aspel: "I would never change a vote because of one or two people. Maybe five or six. Don't mess with me."

11:25 p.m.: Aspel reiterates the need for a number from AES. "I don't want to rush to get a citizen's task force again and a moratorium just because a few people say it's got to be done," he says. "Let's give everybody time … You have to rush into a task force in two weeks, I guarantee you're going to overlook somebody."

He says doing a 45-day moratorium is like kicking the can down the road.

He suggests voting on it.

Diels has a brief comment for Campeggi, regarding her comments. "On one hand, people are saying the community is united, and then on the other hand, we're hearing the community is divided," he says. "I think the community is pretty united behind revitalizing the waterfront."

He says the vote on Measure A just represents the vote on Measure A, and he disagrees with what he sees as Brand's implication that the council has no vision. "What we have is an opportunity that every day is narrowing to try to find alternative uses at the site where a power plant currently exists," he says.

He says the ongoing CenterCal engagement with the public is a successful model of public engagement. He tells Pendergraft that the city asked for a property value "maybe a year ago" and that there is still no answer from AES.

Diels does not support the motion if the task force is structure first. Gin says he envisions a set of broad-based options.

Brand notes that zoning dictates value, and zoning must be established by residents. "We've got to move forward on engaging the public," he says.

They take a vote on the motion, but in the middle, Aust asks, "What are we voting on?"

The motion asking Gin to examine ideas for a task force and come back in two weeks passes unanimously.

11:32 p.m.: Kilroy wants city staff to come back with a moratorium on power generation at the AES site. "This is just sending a message to the California Energy Commission," he says. He notes that AES said they don't have a problem with forcing the CEC to do an energy needs analysis.

Brand seconds the motion.

Webb wants to confirm whether Kilroy is asking staff to come up with an emergency ordinance, though he says it should be brought back in four weeks because the city has to show they're moving forward. Nevertheless, "you do have to move expeditiously in the planning process," Webb says. He suggests May 7.

Diels does not want to "outsource our destiny to the CEC. I don't trust them to have our community interests in mind when they make their decision," he says.

Webb points out that if there's not a conflict, the CEC will just grant the license. "If there is a conflict, then they have to find (that the new plant) is needed for public necessity and convenience," he says.

11:37 p.m.: John Parsons is up again for public comment. He wonders what the cost of the emergency ordinance would be. "There has to be a big, serious planning process going on, and before that planning process can be over, you've got to do an EIR," he says. He wants to know how much it will cost and what's involved in the moratorium.

Vechi is up for the fourth time tonight. "I came tonight with a hope that the council will pass a moratorium on all construction on AES land," she says, adding that she wanted to see a resolution passed with no strings attached. She feels like she's leaving tonight without anything significant getting done, and jokes that maybe Brand shouldn't come to meetings more often, seeing as the March 19 meeting was so productive. "We go back to square one," she says.

The motion passes unanimously. We're done!