Opponents Hail Postponement : Council Delays Action on Trash-Burning Plant

A divided San Diego City Council postponed action Tuesday on rezoning of the Kearny Mesa tract targeted to become the site for a major trash-burning plant, despite pleas from the project developer that $5 million had already been spent on the development.

Opponents of the trash-to-energy plant hailed the delay as a victory, although a longer continuance had been requested by backers of the Clean Air Initiative who have gathered more than 60,000 signatures to put the energy-recovery plant issue before voters in the November election. At least 54,500 valid signatures are required to place the initiative on the ballot and opponents to the plant plan to gather another 20,000 before submitting the petitions to the city on June 17, spokesman Bob Glaser said.

Opponents of the trash-burning plant, which the city plans to build on a 43-acre tract near the junction of California 163 and Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, united under the banner of San Diegans for Clean Air, argued that any action zoning the property for a trash-burning facility should be postponed until environmental studies are made and the public has a chance to voice its opinion of the project at the polls.

After 2 1/2 hours of often heated discussion of the project, the City Council voted 6-1 to delay the rezoning issue until June 23 when a full nine-member council is expected to be present.

Deputy City Manager Coleman Conrad warned council members that the failure to act on the rezoning of the property could cause problems with the California Energy Commission action on the San Diego Energy Recovery (Sander) project.

Not Final Action

“This is not a final action,” Conrad said, and environmental impacts of the plant will be addressed later in the process.

But a phalanx of environmental and community leaders urged the council not to take even a preliminary step that might commit them to later approval of the plant which, several said, threatens to spew a dusting of toxic ash over nearby populated areas, including Tierrasanta and Clairemont Mesa.

Sierra Club spokesman Barbara Bamberger suggested that the city should explore alternative measures of trash disposal, including recycling of glass and metals and requirements for the use of biodegradable packaging materials.

Jack Minan, a USD law school professor, said that the city also is facing a suit challenging the legality of the land swap between the Miramar Naval Air Station and the city which made the Sander plant site available.

The suit, filed in behalf of Sierra Club and San Diegans for Managed Growth, alleges that the city violated the restrictions imposed by Proposition A, a citizen initiative approved in 1985 which requires a public vote of approval before land in the city’s urban reserve--held for development after 1995--is redesignated for urban development.

Minan’s suit seeks a court order invalidating the Navy-city land swap because, he contends, the exchanged land was transferred from urban reserve status to urbanized status without a vote of the people.

Opponents of the Sander project said the plant would emit 10 to 12 tons of pollutants a day and require more than 2 million gallons of water to burn 2,250 tons of waste materials. Ruth Duemler of the Sierra Club said that the Sander plant “would be the largest single source of pollution in San Diego County,” if it is built and would defeat any efforts of local authorities to conform with federal air quality standards.

Through Review

Attorney Paul Peterson, representing the project developer, Signal Environmental Systems, argued that the rezoning of the site was “not a substantive issue,” and would allow the company and the California Energy Commission to proceed ahead with analysis and planning of the project.

He said that when environmental analyses are completed, “this project will be reviewed more thoroughly than any in the United States and, in my opinion, any in the world.”

So far, Peterson said, Signal has spent “in excess of $4 million on the trash-to-energy project,” and city and county expenses have amounted to about $1 million.

Councilman Mike Gotch, noting that he and three other council members will not be on the council after the November elections, questioned whether the council had been misled in advice from city staff to take premature action on the Sander site rezoning.

“It was procedurally unnecessary to bring this item up today,” Gotch said, questioning the advisability of the project and the apparent rushing through of its approval.

“I believe that ‘mass burn’ technology (proposed for the Sander project) is an environmental anachronism,” Gotch said, “and recycling has become just an after-thought.”

Councilwoman Gloria McColl unsuccessfully urged the council to approve the site rezoning “so that we can move ahead on this most urgently needed project. We are running out of a place to put our trash,” which she said amounts to a ton of refuse per person per year.

Vice Mayor William Jones, presiding in the absence of Mayor Maureen O’Connor, pointed out that council commentary showed there was not a five-vote majority needed to approve or deny the Sander tract rezoning and convinced fellow council members to delay the matter for three weeks.

Success Predicted

Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer was the lone vote against the continuance. She complained that the council “continuously continues items. I want to go home some night and feel that we have actually accomplished something.” In a press conference earlier Tuesday, Minan and other backers of the Clean Air Initiative predicted success in qualifying the measure for the November ballot.