Guest Opinion: We need full-circle, not circular, perspective of baylands and recycling Guest Opinion: We need full-circle, not circular, perspective of baylands and recycling (June 09, 2004)

by Karen White

About a year from now, Palo Altans may be asked to vote to relinquish 19 acres of dedicated parkland in the baylands for a full-scale Environmental Services Center, or ESC.

While "environmental services" sounds great, the problem is that recommendations are being offered piecemeal through the budget process. We need to consider the bigger picture. City Council committees seem to be heading toward a far-reaching land-use change that should be addressed first in a community-wide dialogue.

Recent events raise the red flag -- and many questions -- for citizens advocating for both an effective recycling program and preservation of dedicated park lands. For example, the council on May 10 considered whether to maintain the current separate-bin recycling -- which can be handled either in Palo Alto or at Sunnyvale's regional station -- or adopt a "single-stream" program that would need to be processed far south in Castroville.

Although asserting that single-stream recycling is independent from an ESC, the staff report recommending single-stream says implementing the new services would "temporarily be in conflict" with the city's Comprehensive Plan policy to "maintain and expand the use of the Recycling Center at the City's refuse disposal area." But creating the ESC with single-stream processing would make it consistent, the report said.

Almost immediately came a staff recommendation to the Policy & Services Committee to approve a draft scope of services for an environmental impact report for a full-scale ESC at the entrance to Byxbee Park, occupying 19 acres adjacent the sewage treatment plant. All but 3.5 acres of the site are committed as park lands, and any non-park use requires citywide voter approval. A staff argument supporting this proposal was that Sunnyvale's station cannot process single-stream recycling -- just adopted by Palo Alto nine days earlier.

This kind of circular policy-making can make one dizzy.

Before an environmental review of any type is even contemplated, we need to revisit baylands park-use options -- and find a financial plan that makes sense. Even if Palo Altans ultimately agree to surrender park lands for a major recycling plant, the financial projections should be accurate and up-to-date. The current plan relies on a 1999 report that pegs revenues from sale of recyclables at about $51 per ton -- valid then but not now. Today, split-stream recyclables fetch $71 per ton, but single-stream recycling gets less than $20 per ton -- staff says the savings in landfill costs would make up for the far lower single-stream revenues. Please show us.

Also, the plan's projected $2.3 million in annual revenues include $861,000 in "gate fees" for refuse that the city won't collect at all after 2011 -- unless it starts charging gate fees for recycled materials.

In addition, Palo Alto has made commitments to Sunnyvale. Our financial obligation to Sunnyvale's regional operation (called SMaRT) through 2021 totals $6,230,227, and we've already paid nearly $5 million in bond payments as a partner in the Sunnyvale operation. This ratepayer obligation will remain even if we build a recycling center of our own -- or have the Waste Management corporation process our single-stream recyclables in Castroville.

Reports recommending an ESC should include a broader range of alternatives. Sunnyvale cannot add single-stream capability to its SMaRT station, and officials there seem puzzled by Palo Alto's decision to go to single-stream after all the planning that went into the joint operation 11 years ago. Why pay Waste Management to process our single-stream recycling for five years while we build a new $12 million facility in Palo Alto?

Even if we ultimately decide to build in Palo Alto, we should consider our Municipal Services Center site -- 13 acres of public land that is not park-dedicated -- to see if room can be made there for recycling operations. And the former Los Altos sewage treatment plant -- unused for the three decades that Palo Alto has treated Los Altos' sewage -- occupies a 13.26-acre triangle of land next to light-manufacturing uses at the end of San Antonio Road. This site borders Palo Alto and deserves a full evaluation.

Before we are asked to convert park-dedicated land for an ESC, we must determine whether a facility -- whatever its size and service area -- makes sense financially, uses as little land as possible, and uses that land efficiently. Dedicated parkland should be considered last, if at all.

Looking ahead, we should:

1) Undertake an expedited look of the entire baylands for open space, athletic fields and other uses -- encompassing land near the Municipal Golf Course and including developed parcels that may be ripe for re-use. An ad hoc committee could be appointed with a nine-month deadline to make a possible June 2005 election, if needed.

2) Develop land-use options and a business plan that make sense for our recycling and waste disposal. With the regional partnership with Sunnyvale, a small drop-off center for recyclables and transfer station might effectively serve Palo Altans. Finding an alternative site for an ESC would avoid an election that could polarize our community.

3) Keep future needs in mind: An electric power plant may soon help stabilize rates, and guarantee a reliable supply. This possibility should be factored in now.

Taking a comprehensive, collaborative look at the baylands while considering land-use and financial trade-offs for Palo Alto's recycling and parkland needs will be a wise investment in the long-term.

Karen White is involved in several community activities, including serving as president of the Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhood Association. She can be e-mailed at KarenWhite4@sbcglobal.net.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.