STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

GAVIN NEWSOM, G OVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
FAX (415) 904-5400
TDD (415) 597-5885

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

SENT BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

May 26, 2020
Leo Pustilnikov
Leo@slhinvestments.com
Doromy Entities
Info@diico.com
Stephen O’Kane, Director of Sustainability and Regulatory Compliance,
AES US West
Stephen.okane@aes.com
Eric Pendergraft, Director of Business Development
AES California
Eric.pendergraft@aes.com
Steve Winters, Safety Leader
AES Redondo Beach
Steve.winters@aes.com
Violation File No.:

V-9-20-0041 (AES Southland Development, LLC
Redondo Beach Generation Station)

Location:

Former tank portion of the AES Redondo Beach
Generating Station located at 1100 North Harbor
Drive in Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County; APNs
7503-013-014, 7503-013-015, 7503-013-819, and
7503-013-820.

Violation description: 1

Unpermitted development including but not limited to
the unpermitted installation and operation of water

Please note that the description herein of the violations at issue is not necessarily a complete list of all
unpermitted development on the subject property that is in violation of the Coastal Act or the City of
Redondo Beach LCP. Accordingly, you should not treat the Commission’s silence regarding (of failure to
address) other unpermitted development on the subject property as indicative of Commission acceptance
of, or acquiescence in, any such development. Please further note that the term “violation” as used
throughout this letter refers to alleged violations of the Coastal Act or the City of Redondo Beach LCP as
determined by Coastal Commission staff.
1

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 2
pumps for the purpose of groundwater dewatering
affecting approximately 5.93 acres of wetlands at the
former tank portion of the site; unpermitted installation
and operation of water pumps in the vault area.
Dear Addressees:
This letter is regarding ongoing violations of the Redondo Beach Local Coastal Program
(“LCP”) and the Coastal Act 2 on property owned, or formerly owned, by AES Southland
Development, LLC (“AES”) located at 1100 North Harbor Drive in the City of Redondo
Beach. The violations include, but are not necessarily limited to, AES installing and
operating pumps in a manner that dewatered areas considered under the Coastal Act
and the LCP to be wetlands. We understand that portions of the property may have
recently been acquired by new owners (Pustilnikov/Doromy). Please advise if that is not
correct.
As I believe you are aware, the Coastal Act was enacted by the State Legislature in
1976 to provide long-term protection of California’s coastline through implementation of
a comprehensive statewide planning and regulatory program designed to manage
conservation and development of coastal resources. The California Coastal
Commission (“Commission”) is the state agency created by, and charged with,
administering the Coastal Act. In making its permit and land use planning decisions, the
Commission carries out Coastal Act policies, which, amongst other goals, seek to
protect and restore sensitive habitats, including wetlands such as those that exist at this
site. The Commission plans and regulates development within the statutorily defined
“Coastal Zone” consistent with the resource protection policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act. The Commission also reviews and certifies LCPs submitted by local
governments that have part or all of their jurisdictional area within the Coastal Zone and
delegates permitting authority after LCP certification within their certified LCP
jurisdictions. The City of Redondo Beach (“City”) has a certified LCP and, thus, primary
permitting and enforcement authority within its certified LCP jurisdiction. However, in
this case, the City requested Commission staff’s assistance in the enforcement of this
matter; as discussed below.
Background
Our previous letter to AES, dated August 27, 2015, was also sent at the request of the
City. In that letter we detailed several unpermitted development activities undertaken, or
proposed to be undertaken, by AES including, but not limited to, installation and
operation of new water pumps adversely affecting, or having the potential to adversely
affect, up to approximately 5.93 acres of area considered to be wetlands under the
Coastal Act and the LCP within the former tank portion of the AES Redondo Beach
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (“Coastal Act”) is codified in Division 20 of the Public Resources
Code (sections 30000 to 30900).
2

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 3
Generating Station (“RBGS”). Subsequently, AES ceased pumping for a time, though
the unpermitted structures remained in place. Then, on August 17, 2017, AES obtained
an emergency permit from the City (followed by two extensions) that authorized AES to
perform limited pumping pursuant to criteria specified in the emergency permit. The
initial emergency permit authorization was valid through October 16, 2017, and the
second extension expired on February 15, 2018. No further extensions were granted
and, thus, the authorizations provided by the City’s emergency permit expired.
Since that time, the City informed us that AES conducted additional unpermitted
pumping and dewatering of the subject wetland areas on at least two occasions: one
during 2019 and one during early 2020. These activities, which occurred after the
expiration of the emergency permit authorization, constitute additional Coastal Act/LCP
violations. Most recently, it was reported to us that the water levels in the tank basin
areas had dropped precipitously and the City once again requested that the Coastal
Commission assist in enforcement efforts. On February 13, 2020, I again contacted
AES, by telephone and by email, to request that all pumping/dewatering be stopped at
once.
As noted in our August 27, 2015 letter, the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP contain
several policies that afford protection to wetlands:
Coastal Act Section 30231 and LUP Section VI, Subsection D – Land Use, Policy 20
state:
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands,
estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine
organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where
feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of
waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion
of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow,
encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer
areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Coastal Act Section 30233 and LUP Section VI, Subsection D – Land Use, Policy 21
state (in relevant part):
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of
this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging
alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to
minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities,
including commercial fishing facilities.

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 4
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing
navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and
boat launching ramps.
(3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and
lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings
for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational
opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including, but not limited to, burying cables
and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall
lines.
(5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in
environmentally sensitive areas.
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-dependent activities.
These Coastal Act and LCP provisions require generally that biological productivity in
wetlands be protected and that uses in or near wetland areas be limited. While much of
the RBGS site has been developed for more than a century, it nevertheless contains
areas considered under the Coastal Act and LCP to be wetlands. This conclusion is
based on 2013 wetland data that AES provided to Commission staff; observations made
during a site visit by Commission ecologist, Dr. Jonna Engel, in January 2014;
Commission staff’s review of historical information about the site; and a July 2015
determination by the Commission confirming that there are approximately 5.93 acres of
wetlands on the site. 3 The wetland areas are within bermed retention basins that
formerly held fuel oil tanks that were retired in the 1990s and removed in 2006.
We understand that AES disputes the Commission’s conclusion that there are wetlands
at the site, and has stated that any wetland characteristics within the site were artificial
hydrologic features resulting from water moving to the site from a series of injection
wells located from about one half-mile to a mile from the site and operated by the
County of Los Angeles Public Works Department. These injection wells have been
operated since the 1960s to provide a salt water intrusion barrier. AES stated that this
injection well program created an artificially high groundwater table, which led to AES
installing and operating a dewatering system at the site meant to keep groundwater
about three to five feet below the ground surface. AES stated that in 2012 it determined
its dewatering system was underperforming and allowing wetland hydrology and hydric
soils to develop at the site.
Commission staff has found, however, that portions of the site exhibited wetland
characteristics long before the site was developed when it was known as the “Old Salt
See Coastal Commission’s Final Adopted 30413(d) Findings for Redondo Beach Energy Project,
submitted to California Energy Commission.
3

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 5
Lake,”4 as well as several times during the past century, including before the injection
well pumping system was installed. It appears that, instead of the injection well system
creating artificial hydrology, the power plant’s dewatering system has acted to mask
existing wetland characteristics within the site. These characteristics appear to be
present even when the dewatering system is apparently functioning as intended.
Moreover, even if the wetland features were shown to be anthropogenic, that would not
stop those features from causing the area to be appropriately characterized as a
wetland.
The Commission itself has also assessed this issue, in the context of its 30413(d)
review of the AES Redondo Beach Energy Project, and it made its position clear on the
wetland issue in finding that AES’s proposal to install and operate new pumps would
likely further mask or remove the wetland features already identified at the site.
Coastal Act/LCP Violation
Although it appears that AES had some form of dewatering system in place prior to the
effective date of the Coastal Act or its predecessor, AES indicated that, in December
2014, it replaced one of its water pumps intended for groundwater dewatering on the
former tank portion of the site, and that another pump was scheduled to be installed in
June of 2015. At that time, AES did not seek or obtain a coastal development permit
(“CDP”) for installation of these pumps. Further, these new pumps have operated on a
number of occasions since installation without authorization. As noted above, on
August 17, 2017, AES obtained an emergency permit from the City, followed by two
extensions, for operation of the dewatering pumps.
On April 15, 2019, AES submitted a follow-up CDP application to the City, as required
by the emergency permit(s). The City then sent AES a letter, dated May 14, 2019,
indicating that the application was incomplete and describing what is necessary to
complete the application including: identification and discussion of the significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project; discussion of mitigation measures to
minimize any significant effects; and discussion of any less environmentally damaging
alternatives to the proposed project. However, the requested materials were not
submitted, despite assurances earlier this year by AES that they were to be
forthcoming.
On April 30, 2020, Noah Ahern-Perch (as counsel for AES) sent a letter to Brandy
Forbes, the City’s Community Development Director, indicating that AES is formally
withdrawing its CDP application.

4 See, for example, descriptions of the “Old Salt Lake” at the websites of the California Office of Historic
Preservation (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/373, accessed May 5, 2020) and of the
California Historical Landmarks (https://www.californiahistoricallandmarks.com/landmarks/chl-373,
accessed May 5, 2020).

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 6
Pursuant to Section 30106 of the Coastal Act and Section 10-5.2204(a)(13) of the City’s
LCP:
“Development” means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of
any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material
or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging,
mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use
of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map
Act...change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction,
reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure,… and
the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural
purposes…(Emphasis added)
As such, the installation and operation of water pumps for the purpose of groundwater
dewatering on the subject property constitutes “development” under the Coastal Act and
the City’s LCP because it is both the placement of a solid material or structure on land
and the removal of wetland material. Section 30600(a) of the Coastal Act, as well as
Section 10-5.2206(a) of the City’s certified LCP, requires that any person wishing to
perform or undertake development in the Coastal Zone must first obtain a CDP, in
addition to any other permit required by law. Any development activity conducted in the
Coastal Zone without a valid CDP constitutes a violation of the Coastal Act/LCP. Thus,
the unpermitted installation and use of water pumps to pump groundwater constitutes a
Coastal Act/LCP violation. This is true regardless of the status of the area as a wetland,
but it is of significantly greater resource concern given that the area has been
determined by the Coastal Commission to contain areas that are considered to be
wetlands under the Coastal Act and the LCP. We do not consider the installation, use,
or maintenance of these water pumps to be exempt repair and maintenance, due to
their proximity to a wetland, which is considered to be an environmentally sensitive
habitat area 5. Thus, the installation and operation of the subject water pumps is
unpermitted development, and any further maintenance and operation of these pumps
will be considered knowing and intentional violations of the Coastal Act and the City’s
certified LCP. In addition, AES’s withdrawal of the follow-up CDP application, submitted
on April 15, 2019, through which it theoretically could have secured after-the-fact
(“ATF”) authorization for the pumping that AES performed in 2017 and 2018, left that
pumping as unauthorized and subject to enforcement. The failure to complete that
application also violated Condition 1 of the emergency CDP issued by the City.
We previously indicated, in our August 27, 2015 letter, that the path toward resolution of
the outstanding Coastal Act/LCP violations included either seeking and obtaining ATF
authorization for the unpermitted installation and operation of the dewatering system or
seeking and obtaining a CDP for its removal (our recommendation). To date, AES has
not done either of these things. More recently, AES has stated that it no longer needs
to operate the dewatering system and has proposed to disable it in place for the
5

See CCR 14 Section 13252(a)(3).

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 7
remaining period of power plant operations. The fact that AES has asserted that it no
longer needs to continue operating the dewatering system does not obviate the need for
AES and/or the new owners to obtain a CDP for the initial installation/operation of the
dewatering system, and obtain either an ATF CDP to retain the dewatering system or a
CDP for its removal, as it constitutes unpermitted development in violation of the
Coastal Act and the City’s LCP. Merely disabling the mechanisms that control the
dewatering system does not adequately address or resolve the violations.
In addition, it recently came to the attention of the City and the Coastal Commission that
AES has been using sump pumps, portable pumps, or the like to pump water out of the
vaults, without first obtaining, from the City, a CDP for the installation and/or use of such
pumps. We are aware that AES asserts that there is no connection between the vaults
and the tank basins, but neither the City nor the Commission has received any analysis
or documentation by a hydrologist or other expert in the field to validate that assertion.
However, regardless of whether there is a connection, the installation and use of these
pumps constitutes development that requires a CDP. We request that AES provide to
the City detailed and specific information about the vault pumping system so that the
City can determine the resource impacts of this activity, including: a description of the
equipment used; when it was installed; the location of all equipment; how often the
pumping takes place; how much water is pumped out; an analysis by a licensed
hydrologist or hydrogeologist that demonstrates whether the vault system is
hydrologically connected to the tank basin system; whether pumping of the vaults will
significantly affect the water level in the tank basin system or the wetlands therein (this
analysis should include data on water levels in the tank basins during pumping from the
vaults over a range of pumping rates and durations and includes a maximum vault
pumping scenario from the site); and provide a site plan that shows the location of all
vault pumps.
Enforcement Remedies
As we discussed in our letter of August 27, 2015, pursuant to Coastal Act Section
30810(a)(1), the Commission may issue a cease and desist order to enforce the
requirements of a certified local coastal program if the local government requests the
commission to assist with, or assume primary responsibility for, enforcement.
Accordingly, the City has requested that the Commission assist in enforcement of the
alleged Coastal Act violation described herein (see enclosed letter).
Chapter 9 of the Coastal Act contains enforcement remedies to address Coastal
Act/LCP violations. Section 30809 of the Coastal Act provides for the Executive
Director to issue an order if he determines that any person has undertaken, or is
threatening to undertake, any activity that may require a coastal development permit
without first securing said permit. Further, as noted above, Section 30810 provides that
the Coastal Commission may also issue a cease and desist order if it determines that
any person has undertaken, or is threatening to undertake, any activity that requires a

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 8
coastal development permit without first securing said permit. These cease and desist
orders may be subject to terms and conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance
with the Coastal Act/LCP. Moreover, Section 30811 authorizes the Commission to
order restoration of a site where development occurred without a coastal development
permit, is inconsistent with the Coastal Act/LCP, and is causing continuing resource
damage. Finally, The Executive Director is also authorized, after providing notice and
the opportunity for a hearing as provided for in Section 30812 of the Coastal Act, to
record a Notice of Violation against your property.
In addition to the above, Section 30820 of the Coastal Act provides for civil liability to be
imposed on any person who performs or undertakes development without a coastal
development permit and/or that is inconsistent with any coastal development permit
previously issued by the Commission in an amount that shall not exceed $30,000 and
shall not be less than $500 per violation. The Act also provides that additional civil
liability may be imposed on any person who performs or undertakes development
without a coastal development permit and/or that is inconsistent with any coastal
development permit previously issued by the Commission when the person intentionally
and knowingly performs or undertakes such development, in an amount not less than
$1,000 and not more than $15,000 per day for each day in which each violation
persists. The Coastal Act also provides for additional penalties for violations of either a
cease and desist order or a restoration order, and exemplary damages in cases of
knowing and intentional violations of the Coastal Act.
Resolution
In some cases, when unpermitted development takes place in the Coastal Zone, the
alleged violator may seek an ATF CDP from the relevant permitting authority, which in
this case is the City. We noted in our letter of August 27, 2015 that we believed that
the unpermitted installation and operation of water pumps for the purpose of dewatering
wetlands is not approvable under applicable laws. Thus, we indicated that Commission
staff could not recommend approval if AES seeks an ATF CDP for this development.
Rather, we said that in order to resolve the subject Coastal Act/LCP violations on the
subject property and avoid penalties, as well as additional harm to coastal resources,
AES should, among other things, cease all unpermitted activities, including any water
pumping of the former tank site for the purpose of groundwater dewatering; and submit
a complete CDP application to the City of Redondo Beach for removal of the subject
pumps and restoration of any damaged resources. We stated that once a valid CDP is
issued, AES must complete the project, as approved, and comply with all conditions,
including any monitoring requirements, before this violation file can be closed.
This latest Coastal Act/LCP violation consists of the continuing presence of the
unpermitted dewatering system, as well as at least two instances of pumping without
authorization. As AES now asserts it longer needs to operate the dewatering system to
maintain safe operation of the plant, the best course of action is to immediately seek
authorization to remove the pumps from the site. Additionally, the presence and

 NOV letter re: AES
May 26, 2020
Page 9
operation of the vault pumping system also constitutes unpermitted development and is
also a Coastal Act/LCP violation. To begin resolution, please do the following:
1. Cease any unpermitted dewatering of the tank basin area;
2. Submit to the City by June 30, 2020 a complete CDP application seeking
authorization to remove the dewatering system, and to either retain or remove
the vault pumping system;
3. Submit by June 30, 2020 to the City and the Coastal Commission a response to
the information requests related to the vault pumping system noted above;
4. Contact me by June 15, 2020 regarding how you intend to resolve these
outstanding violations.
We hope that we can work cooperatively with you to resolve this matter quickly. I can
be reached at 415-904-5269, or by email at jo.ginsberg@coastal.ca.gov.
Correspondence regarding this matter should, at this time, be conveyed by email.
Failure to meet the deadlines noted above may result in formal action by the
Commission to resolve this Coastal Act/LCP violation. The formal action could include
a civil lawsuit, recordation of a Notice of Violation on your property, the issuance of a
Cease and Desist and/or Restoration Order, and/or imposition of monetary penalties, as
noted above.
Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. We look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,

JO GINSBERG
Enforcement Analyst
Enclosure: Letter from Joe Hoefgen, City Manager, City of Redondo Beach
cc:

Kate Huckelbridge, CCC, Deputy Director
Lisa Haage, CCC, Chief of Enforcement
N. Patrick Veesart, CCC, Enforcement Supervisor
Tom Luster, CCC, Senior Environmental Scientist
Alex Helperin, CCC, Deputy Chief Counsel
Mike Webb, City of Redondo Beach, City Attorney
Jon Welner, City of Redondo Beach Outside Counsel
Joe Hoefgen, City of Redondo Beach, City Manager
Noah Perch-Ahern