The Oxnard City Council on Tuesday voted 4-0 to reject a proposed power plant at Mandalay Beach, upholding a Planning Commission vote last month.

Southern California Edison is under a mandate by the California Public Utilities Commission to build five so-called "peaker" plants this year to meet rising consumer use and shore up the state's energy grid against blackouts. The others are in Stanton, Norwalk, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, and they will start operating by mid-August.

Councilman Dean Maulhardt was absent.

After a two-hour hearing, however, council members said Oxnard has done more than its fair share of hosting such industrial uses for regional benefits, including two power plants.

"This peaker power plant is a 20,000-pound gorilla dressed up in an evening gown," councilman Tim Flynn said.

"It's horrible."

Edison can appeal the decision to the California Coastal Commission. The company, however, will first consult its managers and legal staffs before making a decision, said Mark Nelson, director of generation planning and strategy.

In a presentation to the City Council Edison officials said the $50 million plant would directly benefit Oxnard residents.

"We believe this is essential energy infrastructure," Michelle Nuttall, an Edison project manager told the council.

The 45-megawatt, natural-gas fired plant was slated for a small company-owned parcel next to Reliant Energy's 430-megawatt plant.

The facilities are called peakers because they operate during peak hours.

The plants start up in 10 minutes as opposed to six hours, a valuable feature during natural disasters when there might be power outages.

At issue was a dispute over zoning. Oxnard planners contended the peaker plant was not "dependent" on a coastal location — a requirement for Edison's property — noting the plant did not need ocean water for cooling.

Nino Moscolo, an Edison attorney, said the city's zoning rules don't "require" that a facility be "coastal-dependent."

In June, the Planning Commission rejected the proposal on a 5-2 vote, citing a flawed environmental report, lack of need, and potential problems with the aircraft flight path from a nearby commercial airport.

During the public hearing, critics — outnumbering supporters 2-1 — worried about noise, pollution and spoiled views. Business leaders, however, insisted that a stable energy supply would benefit the economy.