Planners Put More Conditions on Operator of Proposed Trash Station : Waste management: The new concessions would guarantee local jobs and allow for inspections.

The city Planning Commission is attempting to gain additional concessions from the operator of a proposed waste transfer station and recycling center before approving the controversial project.

The commission, which already has placed 70 conditions on the project, decided last week to delay its decision while trying to persuade the operator to agree to such items as donating a percentage of the facility’s profits to one of the city’s nonprofit organizations, guaranteeing jobs to Commerce residents, allowing a committee of Commerce officials and residents to inspect the facility, and prohibiting the company from bidding on a city trash-hauling contract.

The city’s Planning Department will be meeting with officials from Waste Management of North America Inc., operator of the project, to discuss the additional conditions. “We don’t see a big problem with these conditions,” said Stu Clark, project director for Waste Management.

For more than two years, Waste Management has been seeking a permit to allow construction of a facility that would sort 4,200 tons of garbage a day. The trash would be taken by rail to a private landfill in San Bernardino County. The project is expected to generate $2 million a year in city revenue and create more than 130 jobs.

During a heated four-hour hearing last week, a group of residents criticized Waste Management for paying for residents to visit a waste transfer station in Las Vegas. Critics said the Las Vegas station is not comparable to the proposed Commerce facility.

Clark said the trip “was by no means luxurious. The bus trip took six hours and we put them up in a truck stop and had two people to a room.”

He acknowledged that the Nevada facility is not identical to the Commerce project but said it is “the closest thing we could show to represent what we are doing.”

Some residents at the hearing said they were concerned about some of the company’s past business practices. They had assembled a package of information about the company, including reports of a 1991 Ventura County Sheriff’s Department survey that found the company had paid $52.3 million in fines nationwide during the 1980s. The survey listed 10 criminal, 22 civil environmental and 23 civil antitrust cases against the company, including several for price fixing.

“After reading so much data against them how could anyone support them?” resident Anthony Thorpe asked.

The city’s planner, Bob Zarrilli, said he is not concerned about the lawsuits. “They’re a big company and there’s times that there are problems,” he said. “If we felt they were ‘dirty,’ I don’t think we would have been involved with them,” he said.

The commission is scheduled to take up the issue again at its meeting at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday.