On October 25, 2022, on a narrow 4-2-1 vote, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the City rededicate the Measure E site as parkland. Measure E proponents had not been consulted, and no other City commission had been asked to consider the potential value of the site for an environmental facility.

The fact that the Parks and Recreation Commission was almost evenly split says a lot. The one abstention was essentially a no vote; certainly not a yes vote. Only four out of seven Commissioners voted to recommend the Measure E site be rededicated as parkland.

The meeting minutes make it clear that there is much more for the City to consider. Even some Commissioners who voted in favor of rededication had reservations. Here are a few snippets:

1. Starting with the most comprehensive thinker on the Commission:
• Commissioner Brown did not think the role of the Commission was to protect parkland at all costs but to advise on planning and policy issues related to parkland. She also felt a more recent study and more work on this issue was important and that it was premature to recommend action at this point one way or the other. She stated what was absent from the conversation is the state legislation related to SB 1383...Every other jurisdiction is trying to deal with the increase in processing of compost. It is not just a Palo Alto problem; it is a regional and statewide challenge. There were comments made that Public Works and Utilities have no plans for the site, but this has not been prioritized or budgeted for. The analysis on the benefits of the parkland conversion is equally incomplete. She felt the issue required more study but it was not the purview of this Commission and would need to be referred to the City Council. She felt it was irresponsible to make a recommendation based on a 2014 study without looking at the technology and legislation requirements.
2. Council should take into consideration other issues besides parkland:
• Chair Greenfield discussed the role of the Parks and Recreation Commission in considering this action. Assessment of the technical merits of potential future plans and concerns about sea level rise are beyond the scope of the Commission. The City Council will consider things beyond Parks and Recreation's area of expertise.
• Commissioner Cribbs was concerned that the ad hoc did not talk to the Utilities Commission and Committee for Sustainability.
• Council Member DuBois stated there have not been any recent policy decisions from the Council on Site E. He felt the point about the scope was a good one and that ultimately the Council would have to make a decision based on the different factors.
3. Council has not received a technology update in years.
• Chair Greenfield asked the last time staff reviewed a potential project for the Measure E site consistent with Measure E.
• Ms. North replied 2014.
• Commissioner Oche wanted to know if a recent study had been done to weigh the pros and cons of rededication or going ahead with a future energy or compost facility.
• Mr. Anderson responded that there is not a recent study weighing pros and cons of compost versus parkland.
• Karin North, Assistant Public Works Director for Environmental Services Division, stated the ballot initiative gave direction to look at different technologies. The digester was very expensive, and the Council held off and then decided on a sludge dewatering and haul-out facility while technologies changed and evolved. Since that time, staff has been working to rebuild the liquid side of the wastewater treatment plant and has not been directed to do an analysis on Measure E pros and cons, mostly due to staff constraints.
• Ms. North stated...In regard to solids, the timing may change based on Council and the Climate Action Plan goals. The current plan is to look at solids processing after the secondary treatment plant process is upgraded, which is a 5-year project.
4. Staff needs more resources to do the necessary work:
• Ms. Brown agreed that there are competing demands on time and a finite amount of resources. If Council determines that biosolids and hauled food waste and yard trimmings need to be handled on site, then staff would need to reshuffle priorities to do more analysis.
• Chair Greenfield stated the site has been sitting in limbo for 8 years. He questioned how long it would take to approve a new plan for the site.
• Ms. North stated if the staff resources were available and it was a direction from Council, a new plan could probably be done in a year or two.
5. Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission deliberation and vote can be found here (scroll down to page 6). View the video here (scroll down to 5. Park Dedication).