By LILA SEIDMAN | Reporter
Ahearing held at 1:30 p.m., Nov. 9 at the Palisades Branch Library concerning a pole-top distribution station (PTDS) partially constructed near the corner of Marquez Avenue and Sunset Boulevard ended on a contentious note.
Several residents accused the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) of inadequately exploring more aesthetically pleasing alternative options to the 61-foot-high structure, including an underground or pad-mounted transformer.
Construction of the PTDS was halted last month because it lacked the appropriate Coastal Development Permit. LADWP is now seeking permit approval from the LA City Engineer.
Several circuits in the area have been operating at 100 percent load or more for several years, causing periodic outages for residents, according to LADWP Electrical Service Manager Bill Herriot. This PTDS and another that is in mid-construction on Temescal Canyon Boulevard, south of Sunset, would serve as “band aids” until a permanent distribution station can be designed and installed. Harriot added that they might need to install more of the stations as the need arises.
“We’re at a critical point now where we have to provide additional power distribution in the area,” Herriot told attendees. “Although the footprint to some may seem large, it’s small in comparison to the power needs of the community.”
Some community members disagree; an “anti” petition currently signed by 236 people on change.org calls the PTDS an “industrial blight, which is detrimental to the character and visual resources of our neighborhood.”
However, many residents present acknowledged that more reliable power sources are needed. Plans for a new substation have been put off for decades.
Alexandre Cornelius, a lawyer for Steven Somers, who co-purchased land near the project to develop, called the project “a do it first and seek permission later situation,” and said DWP is in violation of the Coastal Act, LA General Plan and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Because DWP allegedly started construction without knowing it needed the Coastal Development Permit, it did not notify residents of the impending construction—its prerogative, according to the Public Works Department. As it were, DWP violated protocol. “There’s been no due process,” Cornelius said.
Somers and Cornelius commissioned private consultants to review alternatives, who presented reports that the station can indeed be a pad-mount or undergrounded. They also disputed the staff reports cost assessment of $930,000.
Somers echoed other residents at the meeting, who questioned just how long “temporary” is and asked that the DWP set a four-year, nonrenewable limit.
Herriot said that the length of time depends on how long it takes the DWP to work with the community to obtain environmental-related documents, including a Notice of Preparation (NOP).
Sarah Conner, president of the Pacific Palisades Residents Association, told attendees “our Councilmember Mike Bonin, at an initial meeting, made a promise to our entire community that no matter what the cost, that the residents would all be happy with the final outcome.”
Debbie Dyner Harris, Councilmember Bonin’s district director, said Bonin “is in favor of providing electrical service that it is desperately needed in the Palisades” and that “there was a significant community vetting process” for the best location for the PTDS. She added that a NOP is already in the works.
In February, LADWP presented the Pacific Palisades Community Council with its two original locations for the stations, on El Medio Avenue, next to Palisades Charter High School, and Marquez Avenue near Marquez Elementary Charter School.
From the get go, residents expressed concerns, and in March another community meeting was held to discuss additional potential locations and receive resident feedback. On May 6, DWP announced the two locations where construction has begun—residents again expressed concerns.
A hearing concerning the permitting of the project on Temescal was held two weeks ago.
According to Environmental Supervisor Catalina Hernandez, who led the meeting, the application will be amended to reflect residents’ comments and then will go to the city engineer for approval. Because of the proposed cost of the plan, she said it will also need state approval.
“It’s not going to happen overnight,” she said. Once a decision is made, there is a 10-day appeal period.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
