Doug Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue

Based upon my understanding of EIRs,
I believe that they provide the wrong granularity
of analysis for the decisions that need to be made
about the various alternatives.

The reason given for using this EIR to also do the analysis
of the alternates is to allow
an earlier start on the construction of the ESC.

However, this schedule for building the ESC seems to be driven
not by any requirement for the facility,
but by the admitted desirability of continuity of rental income
to the General Fund,

This income for the General Fund is very important,
but it does not warrant making a hasty, ill-considered decision.

The Auditor's report cites the large change in the economics since
the 1999 BVA report.
The various presentations I have heard indicate
that we are still in a period of rapid change in technology
and hence economics.

Some of the financial advantages of building an ESC in the near-term
may well be more than offset by greatly accelerated depreciation
of that investment.

Confirming and preserving the build-ability of the site without
committing on whether and what to build MAY represent
the preferred balancing of risks.

This is an especially complicated decision for the Council because
the City would be not just the owner of the ESC as a business,
but also its landlord and its customers,
and hence must be viewed from all three perspectives.

The Auditor's Report addresses only one and a half of these three.

Last summer when I addressed the Council on the ESC proposal,
I expressed concerns about the number of false dichotomies
and incomparable numbers -
such as including revenues from the landfill but not the expenses.
Some of these were outside the scope of the Auditor's Report
and hence remain to be addressed.

I continue to be uncomfortable with the expressed driving philosophy
behind the ESC proposal: the necessity of local control.

People who advocate a "sustainability lighthouse"
also talk about the obsolence of the decade-old SMaRT station,
seemingly without appreciation that the ESC too
would soon cease to be a trophy.

Those citing the need for flexibility seem to have only abstract concerns.

The argument that every city should be responsible for its own waste
neglects that the ESC would be only a minor way station.

The argument that it would the ESC would provide a education resource
seems like the tail wagging the dog.

This would seem to be one of those instances where deferring a decision
for a more complete analysis
is an act of wisdom rather than of indecisiveness.