Publication Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Editorial: Recycling center plan deserves closer look
Editorial: Recycling center plan deserves closer look
(July 28, 2004) Many questions remain about large Environmental Services Center proposal, but council should take the next step toward getting better answers
Just six years ago, the city staff rejected continued use of Palo Alto's baylands for refuse processing "due to conflicts with the current operation of the landfill and closure, and loing term plans by the city to use the closed landfill as a public park."
Times have changed, and the city staff now proposes to use 19 acres of the area surrounding the existing recycling center for an expansive Environmental Services Center, rather than converting it to park use after the dump closes in 2011.
The City Council Monday night is scheduled to consider authorizing a "request for proposals" for a consultant who would prepare and environmental impact report (EIR) on the proposed center -- complete with a comprehensive list of alternatives and althernative sites.
The full EIR is expected to cost between $200,000 and $250,000, according to staff projections. The City Council has vowed not to proceed with any expenditures toward the proposed center until after City Auditor Sharon Erickson completes an audit of the plethora of figures relating to costs, revenues, volumes and other aspects of the proposal. Erickson has targeted mid-October.
Monday night's action would only approve preparation of the request for proposals, for which the staff work is reportedly already done. It is not a decision to spend $200,000 or more for the full environmental impact study.
Given that, it would seem to us to make sense for the city to proceed to the next step -- but to bear in mind that we and many others in the community want to see clear, complete and credible answers to some important questions.
The result of the proposal has been a loud cry of "foul" from longtime baylands guardian Emily Renzel and others, who claim this would violate the city's park-dedication ordinance, enacted by initiative petition in 1965.
It also has evoked strong support from advocates of "sustainability," meaning bringing our wasteful modern way of living more into line with the long-term interests of the global (and local) environment.
Thus we have the irony of two environmentally conscious community factions gearing up for battle over the proposed center.
The only thing on which everyone agrees is that the proposal to divert the 19 acres from the intended park use must be approved by a majority of the city's voters -- next year, perhaps, not in November.
The plethora of figures, old and new staff reports and claims and counterclaims has resulted in the council asking City Auditor Sharon Erickson to conduct an audit to help sort things out. Erickson, who has built up a solid base of trust since she joined the city last year, so far will only be looking at the statistics on future volumes, costs and revenues.
But she should do more. There should be a "process audit," that delineates just how this huge, $12 million project got this far pretty much below the radar of community awareness. While we don't see evidence of intentional stealth, it did seem to get in the back door of the city's budget when not many people were looking, as Renzel alleges.
There also needs to a better explanation for why the city now wants to distance itself from the Sunnyvale waste-processing operation in which it and Mountain View have invested millions, and why so-called "single-stream recycling" is better than the split-stream operation in Sunnyvale.
There needs to be a convincing showing that maintaining revenues for the city's general fund -- estimated at about $1.2 million a year if the project goes ahead at full scale (down from more than $6 million annually from the existing dump operation) -- is not the primary motivation for the plan.
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts and Project Manager Michael Jackson provide persuasive reasons why the center should proceed. But Renzel and others provide equally convincing arguments for proceeding with the original park-dedication plans -- and Renzel wants to kill this project in its tracks.
"I've never seen an environmental impact report that didn't result in a project," even if some projects never made it to completion, Renzel said of her years on the Planning Commission and City Council.
But the EIR is not at issue Monday night -- just a preliminary step in that direction that will provide information to complement the audit results. There will be time enough to sort out differences and explore alternatives before a go or no-go decision is required. The council should proceed to the next step, stepping carefully.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
