City Council delays vote

Decision on Poseidon plant put off until next month; economic benefits to city need clarification.The vote on a controversial desalination facility has been put off once more, delaying an inevitable marathon meeting but providing a few more clues about the fate of the project.

About 70 people showed up at Monday’s City Council meeting to comment on the project, but most went home after the council opted to delay voting until Nov. 21. Poseidon officials said the delay could be even longer.

The fate of a $250-million desalination facility hangs in the balance. Backers of the project argue that it would create a needed source of water for Southern California and generate tax revenue for Huntington Beach. Opponents argue the plant, sandwiched into an abandoned lot at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Avenue, would be a burden to residents in southeast Huntington Beach, who already struggle with a toxic waste dump, a sewer plant and a coastal power generator in their backyards.

The heated debate has consumed Surf City politics and was headed for a climax Monday evening before the delay was called.

“Based on the facts that I was looking for, I’m willing to delay this,” Councilman Keith Bohr said. “There is not clear-cut information on the economic benefits.”

A clarification of those benefits was a stipulation of a partial approval by the council in September. At that meeting, in a 4-3 vote with Dave Sullivan, Debbie Cook and Jill Hardy opposing, the council voted to approve the environmental impact report but delay issuing permits until they were given proof in writing that the project would financially benefit Huntington Beach. On Monday, Bohr said that proof wasn’t quite ready.

Councilman Sullivan said he was suspicious of the move.

“If the project was going to be voted down, it should be voted down tonight,” he said. “Otherwise, they’re just wasting the staff’s time. I would have liked to see an up-or-down vote.”

Whatever the motivation, Monday’s decision reveals a new aspect of the city’s relationship with Poseidon: apparently officials with the company are engaged in some type of negotiations with the city’s administration over the specifics of the benefits.

Poseidon vice president Billy Owens said the two sides were simply updating different aspects of the agreement so all the terms of the deal could be put before the council.

“We’re trying to smooth out the process so that it will be easier to make a judgment on this,” he said.

Now on the table is a proposal to provide the city with 3 million gallons of water per day at a slightly reduced rate from what the city pays for imported water, as well as a promise to provide water in the event of an earthquake or other catastrophe.

Poseidon would also pay the city at least $100,000 a year for the right to run pipelines though the city, as well as property taxes, utility taxes and up to $200,000 per year in water quality programs.

Owens said he thinks the delay was prompted by concern with ensuring that all the promises would continue in the long term.

“The council wants to make sure everything is legally defensible,” he said.

Hansen said many of the offers from Poseidon came at the last minute, and city officials need more time.

“I want everybody to believe that this project got full scrutiny,” he said.

The dozens of activists on both sides of the issue who came to lobby seemed OK with the delay.

“I’m kind of emotionally psyched up for this whole thing,” anti-Poseidon activist John Earl said. “It’s kind of like waiting for the results of an election.”

It’s unlikely that masses of people will show up to speak at the next meeting Earl said.

“Everyone already knows what the numbers are,” he said. “It’s kind of overkill.”

QUESTION

Do Poseidon’s new offers justify a yes vote from the City Council? Call our Readers Hotline at (714) 966-4691 or send e-mail to hbindependent @latimes.com. Please spell your name and include your hometown and phone number for verification purposes.