Plan for Toxic Waste Recycling Plant in Oceanside Dropped : S.D. Firm Blames a ‘Not in My Back Yard’ Attitude for Fierce Opposition That Killed the Proposal

Fierce opposition and the prospect of a protracted battle with environmentally conscious neighbors have persuaded Recontek, a San Diego-based firm, to abandon its plans to build a toxic waste recycling plant in Oceanside.

Wayne Rosenbaum, Recontek’s vice president, announced his company’s withdrawal to City Council members at their meeting Wednesday.

“We thank the council and the staff for giving us an objective, professional and clear review of our project,” said Rosenbaum, ending studies that probed the possibility of building a 51,000-square-foot plant targeted for the San Luis Rey Valley.

The decision elated city and community leaders who feared potential toxic calamities occurring in their city.

“I’m glad everything worked out well,” said Councilwoman Lucy Chavez, who pointed to a document stating Recontek’s withdrawal, and queried: “Can we frame it?”

Determined to Build Plant

In the early spring of this year Recontek appeared determined to build the plant with or without the city’s blessing, hoping the project would be approved through the Tanner Bill. Passed by the Legislature in 1986, the act ultimately allows the state to have the final say in land-use decisions concerning toxic-waste treatment centers and disposal sites.

The bill, which was sponsored by Assemblywoman Sally Tanner, (D-Baldwin Park), allows a city’s decision on such issues to be appealed to a special state board. State officials have insisted that toxic waste recycling facilities are critically needed and designed the bill to prevent such issues from being derailed by local disputes.

Mayor Larry Bagley, savoring the victory, speculated that Recontek would not have had a chance for an appeal.

“I’m rather pleased, but not surprised (by the withdrawal),” Bagley said. “We insisted that they go through every step required by our land use and zoning regulations. I think they just faced the fact that after our process they would have no basis for an appeal.”

Goals ‘Do Not Meet’

Rosenbaum maintained his position that the project was safe, but said it was no longer in his company’s best interest to pursue the project in Oceanside.

“The goals of Oceanside and the goals of my company do not meet,” Rosenbaum said. “There are still many people (in Oceanside) who maintain an attitude of ‘not in my back yard.’ Oceanside has defined themselves. . . . They want to be a retirement community or a resort community. And I think they’ll be successful at that.

“But we’re looking for a community that says yes to high-tech, and that wants good-paying jobs,” Rosenbaum said. “That’s why we’re going elsewhere.”

Rosenbaum said Recontek has been solicited by cities in two other states (Washington and Arizona) and a city in Northern California to build a toxic waste recycling plant.

‘Cost of Doing Business’

He said Recontek spent about $40,000 for feasibility studies on the Oceanside site, and referred to the loss of the initial investment as “the cost of doing business.”

Critics were primarily concerned about a potential accident at the plant, along with fears that a growing number of trucks laden with toxics would rumble through city streets, escalating the possibility of a traffic accident and spill.

In addition, opponents feared that a recycling plant would attract high-tech and aerospace firms that would produce toxics and change Oceanside into a heavily industrialized city.

“I’m thrilled that they are no longer considering Oceanside,” said Charisse Krieger, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Risking the Environment (CARE). Krieger was one of the leaders of the grass-roots group that had served as the flag-bearer for the plant opponents.