Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Power Plant Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts reports objecting to fast‑track and citing location concerns for proposed Baldwin Hills power plant
Summary
The City Council adopted two committee reports on a proposed power‑generation site, endorsing objections to a fast‑track approval process and urging pursuit of alternative sites. Members said the Baldwin Hills location is inappropriate and that the Air Quality Management District had not completed its work,
The Los Angeles City Council on June 19, 2001 adopted two committee reports that together objected to fast‑track approval and urged that alternative sites be pursued for a proposed power‑generation facility, a move that signaled council opposition to siting the plant in the Baldwin Hills area.
Committee debate exposed two complementary positions: the Environmental Quality Committee recommended rejecting the fast‑track process and pressing regulators to pursue alternative sites, while a Commerce/CE/NR chair recommended flat opposition to siting the facility at the identified Baldwin Hills location. Councilmember Ridley‑Thomas framed the EQ report as focused on process and on the need for the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to complete its permitting analysis. “The thrust of the reports where there is common ground is to say that this is an undesirable set of circumstances,” he said, adding that the AQMD “has not completed the work that it is supposed to do in order for the fast track to go forward.”
Councilmember Holden argued the Baldwin Hills location was unacceptable and urged a firm “flat‑out” opposition: “Whether the facts are on the table or not, this is not the appropriate location to put this plant at all,” he said. Other members said they supported the twin approach of objecting to fast‑track procedures and asking the energy authorities to look for alternative siting locations. Councilmembers moved to adopt both committee recommendations; the council approved both reports and directed staff and any relevant agencies to consider alternatives and to note concerns about process and the lack of completed air‑quality determinations.
Why it matters: the council’s action is a formal expression of opposition to the proposed Baldwin Hills siting and to expedited approval processes. Members emphasized neighborhood health and equity concerns and procedural fairness, and the Council’s adoption of committee language places the City on record urging regulators to slow the process and pursue alternatives.
The council instructed that the fast‑track scenario be rejected and asked the appropriate agencies to seek alternative locations; members also asked AQMD and other permitting bodies to complete their technical review and make findings available before any expedited siting is advanced.
