Decision on Rezoning for SANDER Plant Stalled

Troubled by lingering questions about the environmental effects of trash-to-energy technology, the San Diego City Council on Tuesday put off a key decision on whether to rezone a Kearny Mesa site targeted for a trash-burning power plant.

In a unanimous vote, the council delayed the rezoning--needed to allow construction of the plant--until November, when a state report addressing the plant’s environmental risks will be released. The delay might allow a public vote on a measure to stop construction before the rezoning decision is made.

Although council members stressed repeatedly Tuesday that their action should not be viewed as a vote against the controversial SANDER plant, opponents of the trash-to-energy facility quickly hailed the decision as an unqualified victory.

‘Symbolizes a Rethinking’

“We’re thrilled,” said Bob Glaser, leader of a group sponsoring a ballot measure aimed at blocking SANDER. “I think this symbolizes a rethinking of mass burn. It’s an acknowledgement that there are serious questions as to the viability and safety of this technology.”

Officials with Signal Environmental Systems, the firm hoping to build the plant, said the council’s unanimous decision would hinder their quest for state approval of the facility and might jeopardize SANDER altogether.

Indeed, during a public hearing on the issue Monday, Signal Project Director Frank Mazanec warned that he could not recommend that his company proceed with plans for the plant unless the council promptly endorses the rezoning.

“The trouble is, we needed this issue resolved now to allow the permitting process to go forward smoothly,” Paul Peterson, a prominent land-use attorney hired by Signal, said after Tuesday’s meeting. “You don’t want to go through this whole costly and time-consuming approval process with this kind of uncertainty waiting at the end.”

Council members, however, seemed unconvinced that delaying a vote on the rezoning issue would expose Signal to fatal delays. Bolstering that view was the California Energy Commission, the agency that is evaluating the plant and will decide early next year whether to issue a permit.

A spokesman for the energy commission said the agency empathizes with the council’s need for more information on the plant’s potential threat to the environment and said that postponing rezoning will not interfere with the state’s review of the project.

‘Premature to Proceed’

“I think it’s premature today to proceed ahead with the rezone, especially in light of this information from the CEC,” Mayor Maureen O’Connor said. “I think we can proceed on course, work with the community, get the environmental review done and not harm the project.”

Moreover, O’Connor and other council members noted that more than 80,000 residents have signed petitions supporting the so-called “clean air initiative” backed by Glaser’s group, San Diegans for Clean Air.

The measure, which backers hope will be on the November ballot, would prohibit SANDER and similar incinerators from causing an increase in air pollution and from using drinking water for its process. It also bars construction of trash-burning energy plants within three miles of hospitals, schools, child care centers and nursing homes, and requires that such plants include an extensive recycling program.

To get the measure on the ballot, at least 54,454 of the signatures must be certified by the city clerk’s office.

Glaser and his allies had argued that the council should allow residents to “have their say on SANDER” before the 43-acre Kearny Mesa site is rezoned to permit it. Tuesday’s decision effectively does that.

“It’s just what we wanted,” said Janet Brown, founder of Citizens Advocating a Safe Environment, an anti-SANDER group in Tierrasanta. “This will let the public vote and give the council more time to find out about the environmental dangers of incineration.”

Dwindling Landfill Space

SANDER, known formally as the San Diego Energy Recovery Project, is a joint city-county effort designed to help solve the trash crisis posed by the region’s rapidly dwindling landfill space. It would burn 2,250 tons of trash a day--about 45% of the refuse discarded daily at the Miramar landfill--while generating electricity for 60,000 homes.

The incinerator would be one of the biggest individual polluters in San Diego County, releasing nearly four tons of pollutants a day. Debate over the facility has centered on the environmental and public health risk posed by emissions from the plant, which would include a range of known and suspected carcinogens like dioxins, cadmium, arsenic and aromatic hydrocarbons.

Studies conducted by Signal have concluded that the plant poses no significant health risk. But critics contend that the effects of ingesting such materials are unclear; many of the contaminants are so-called “non-criteria” pollutants for which there are no standards on safe exposure levels.

In the middle of the fray is the City Council, which must decide whether to give its final support to the incinerator next year if the facility is granted a permit by the Energy Commission.

On Tuesday, several council members expressed growing reservations about the risks of trash-to-energy technology and whether other alternatives had been adequately explored. In particular, Councilman Mike Gotch urged that Signal include in its plan a recycling program to remove plastics, metals and industrial materials from the waste before burning.