The light-hearted banter at last night’s Bay District meeting ends up serving as a metaphor for the way the Commission is moving on it’s Redwood Marine Terminal Development project.

Commissioner Ronnie Pelligrini passed around a photo of an 85 pound salmon someone found dead on Battle Creek, and Pat Higgins, not to be outdone in the fishing enthusiasm department, passed around a photo of his recent 30 lb salmon caught on the Klamath with sea lice still on it.  “I’m flush with Omega threes,” he said.

A figurative big dead fish, the railroad, was in part at issue as the commission considered their options with regard to the Redwood Marine Terminal Business Plan.

Actually, consideration of the options wasn’t really what happened.  Commissioner Ronnie Pellegrini quickly made a motion to proceed with all six of staff’s recommendations:

1) Receive and file the report
2) Initiate the EIR process
3) Rank consultants and pick one
4) Do various assessments needed for the EIR
5) Enter a long term agreement with the Timber heritage Association
6) Negotiate an agreement with Human impact Partners to conduct a Health Impact Analysis.

Before the motion was even seconded, 3rd District Commissioner Mike Wilson attempted to offer an amendment to separate these actions into a motion to receive and file, and a separate motion to initiate the CEQA process.  This would have enabled the commission to discuss each issue and weigh their options.
But once 2nd District Commissioner Curless seconded the motion, Pellegrini refused to accept the amendment, leaving the commission to vote on the whole deal.

Most of the comments covered the same issues of desire for economic renewal, environmental concerns and feasibility concerns, but there was a new face in town, Larry Keller from Santa Rosa, a consultant associated with the Port of Los Angeles.  His polished smarmy remarks about how wonderful port improvements will be here were quickly mocked by the next speaker: “Hey man.  You wanna play golf down in Shelter Cove before you go back to L.A.?”

The divisiveness picked up there with another speaker saying she was waiting for the District to censure 2nd Division Commissioner Dennis Hunter for letting his boat sink at Fields Landing and being responsible for the Anhydrous Ammonia leaks at his family’s Eureka Ice Company.

As usual, the main event of the evening was Commissioner Mike Wilson’s questioning of staff and consultants.

Curless gets testy

It started off with a minor question about the citation of an old economic study in the business plan that for some reason compelled Curless to interrupt.

Curless:  It was a long time ago.

Wilson:  I realize that, and that is why I’m asking why it’s referenced in the way it is here.  (To the consultant) Did you read the Quigley report?

Consultant:  I referenced it to get different examples of job ratios.

Where’s the gravel?

Wilson noted that the business plan mentioned bulk cargos such as woodchips, but not gravel, and asked why that wasn’t included.  The consultant said that because of environmental restrictions, they didn’t look at that.  Wilson noted that this proposal is bracketed by two others, the Proposition 1B application, and the NCRA business plan, that propose moving large quantities of gravel.

A Referendum?

Wilson tried to get to the bottom of an assertion that harbor watchdog and Kneeland resident Dave Spreen has made, that any bond over $2 million, an amount that would surely be exceeded if bonds were the route toward raising money, would require a referendum by the voters.

It was unclear whether a citizens group would have to challenge the bond or whether the district would have to hold the referendum regardless, but in essence, district staff did not negate Spreen’s assertion.  Spreen interrupted the discussion from the audience stating that the law was worded to say without a referendum, “the aggregate amount shall not exceed $2 million, period.”  District council seemed to essentially agree.

Train Geometry

Railroad geometry questions were part of the next line of questioning.  Wilson asked about whether the railroad would be likely able to handle double-stacked containers given the many tunnels that would have to be rebuilt, and trains over a mile long, which could have problems with the track geometry of the curvy Eel River Canyon.

The consultant simply said that the railroad would have to be able to handle those types of trains for a container terminal to work, but he refused to discuss how feasible that would be.

Commission’s Positions

Curless didn’t say a thing, and we all knew how he would vote anyway.

Ronnie tried to claim this is not a “build it and they will come” project.  “Maybe I wasn’t clear.  In order for this to move forward in any way shape or form, we are going to have to get clients to commit.  That’s when you identify the clients.  That’s going to be Wilson Lacey’s [the harbor’s $200,000 per year port shiller] job to get those.  Right now we don’t know if it’s going to pencil out.”

Higgins: “I’m crystal clear on this, Ronnie.  I’ve heard form the finest minds in the county.  We don’t have commodities for export or the income for import.  I think we are in a real financial crisis.  It’s painful, but I see us working together on a different vision.”

Wilson closed by saying he like the vision of a multipurpose dock producing jobs.  He compared the district’s approach to a tractor pull.  The further the tractor pulls, the deeper the thing it is dragging digs into the ground.  It’s an impressive effort, but in the end the tractor comes to a stop as the resistance increases.  “We all want prosperity.  The reason I am going to vote no isn’t because I disagree.  I don’t like the way we are proposing to execute it today.”

Hunter seemed to feel that the plan was flexible enough that the railroad wouldn’t weigh it down.  “As you know, I hope the railroad comes back.  If I were betting on it, I would say the railroad isn’t coming back.  We have a strategy of developing the port.  We are trying to get some income.  See where our environmental process takes us.”

The Commission in the end voted in its usual 3 to 2 fashion with Wilson and Higgins opposing.

I’d say that big dead fish of a railroad is still dragging behind the tractor and it’s just a matter of time before it hangs things up and has to be cut loose.  The question is: How much effort will be wasted designing trails around the non-operational railroad until we do?