From: D3WestOakland@yahoogroups.

com on behalf of 'Cook, Brigitte'

bcook@oaklandnet.com [D3WestOakland] <D3WestOaklandnoreply@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 7:18 PM
To:
d3westoakland@yahoogroups.com;
d3oaklanddtownlake@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[d3WestO] OAKLAND SAYS NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE PORT
OF OAKLAND
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OAKLAND SAYS NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND
May 8, 2015 Last weeks news headline Unlikely Partners: Utah Investing $53 Million to Export
Coal Through Oakland Port, came as a shock to Oaklands political leaders, who have
consistently opposed the export of hazardous fossil fuels due to safety and environmental
concerns.
City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney says that she plans to bring a formal resolution
to the City Council to consider the health and safety impacts of a possible deal to bring
thousands of coal-filled rail cars from Utah, to be shipped out of the Port of Oakland.
The resolution from the Council President will call for a public hearing in front of the City Council,
to discuss the health and safety impacts to West Oakland and to Port workers from transporting
and processing coal at the Army Base. The planned public hearing will be a chance for the City
Council to hear from the public and from experts, on the health and safety effects of having a
coal export terminal operating at the Port.
Says McElhaney, Since coal export was not contemplated when the Army Base Development
project was approved, the community has not yet had the chance to make their voices heard on
this subject.
The Oakland City Council, and the Port Board of Commissioners have already taken stances
against coal exports, specifically:
In February of 2014, the Board of Port Commissions rejected a proposal to ship coal from one of
their terminals.
In June of 2014, Councilmember McElhaney and her colleagues passed a resolution opposing the
transport of coal, oil, petcoke (a byproduct of the oil refining process) and other hazardous
materials by railways and waterways within the City. That resolution was advisory only, since the
City does not have jurisdiction over the railways.
The decision to ship coal out of the Port of Oakland has implications beyond the health of local
residents who may be affected by coal dust or potentially hazardous spills.
According to Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the Bay Area Sierra Club, Utah and other coal producers
are so eager to ship their product out of the country, because the domestic market has dried up,
as the United States adopts cleaner forms of energy. West coast ports are rejecting new coalshipment terminals because coal even if its burned somewhere far away is a dirty fuel that
has global impacts in terms of climate change.
Councilmember Gibson McElhaney will introduce her resolution for scheduling at the Oakland
City Council Rules Committee Hearing on May 14th, in the City Council Chambers.
####
__________________________________________________
Brigitte Cook, Community Liaison
Oakland District 3 Council President Lynette McElhaney
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza ? 2nd Floor, City Council Office ? Oakland, CA 94612

Office (510)238-7245
Connect with us: Twitter: @LynetteGM Facebook/Lynette2012
From: Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter <information@sierraclub.org> on
behalf of Kyle Swenson <sierra@sierraclub.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:35 AM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
Don't allow coal exports from my Oakland
Jun 3, 2015
Ms. Lynette McElhaney
3rd Floor
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612-1932
Dear Ms. McElhaney,
OAKLAND IS ONE OF THE MOST FORWARD THINKING CITIES IN THE COUNTRY, AND IT IS A SHAME
THAT
ANYONE WOULD EVEN THINK TO TARNISH OUR LAND WITH SUCH AND ACT. NIMBY! NIABY!
I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the export of coal from the bulk facility at the
Oakland Army
Base, under development by California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG), in partnership with
the City
of Oakland and the State of California. Despite multiple promises from CCIG President Phil Tagami
not to
export coal from that facility, it appears that the company has been quietly pursuing a project to
export
five to six million tons of Utah coal out of Oakland each year.
Coal is bad for the climate, community and worker health, and the environment, and both
Oakland and
California have standing policies opposing the export of dirty energy.
California is a coal-free state for good reason, and shouldn't be enabling other countries with less
stringent environmental protections to burn it. Coal is the most carbon-intensive of all the fossil
fuels
and coal is the largest contributor to climate disruption. Whether it's burned here or abroad, the
effect
of coal on global climate will be felt by everyone. While California is setting aggressive carbonreduction
targets, this terminal would allow the most carbon-polluting fuel to be brought to market, with
devastating consequences.
Coal is bad for our local workforce, organized labor, and worker health. Terminals that ship coal
provide
far fewer jobs than terminals that ship containers or general cargo -- and that means fewer jobs
for
Oakland residents. Coal is increasingly an anti-union industry. With the imminent closing of the
Deer
Creek mine in Emery County, Utah, there will be no union mines operating in that state. Oakland
should
support projects that create good union jobs.

Longshoremen that work at coal-export facilities are exposed to serious health risks. Prolonged,
direct
exposure to coal dust has been linked to health issues such as chronic bronchitis, decreased lung
function, emphysema, cancer, and heart disease.
Coal dust and particulate matter from trains' diesel engines pose significant threats to Bay Area
air and water quality. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust and contains mercury, arsenic,
uranium, and hundreds of other toxins harmful to humans and marine animals. West Oakland
residents are already twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma as the average
Alameda County resident, and are also more likely to die of cancer and heart and lung disease.
The increased freight traffic carrying coal would intensify the air pollution already plaguing West
Oakland, threatening local public health and safety.
Even with mitigation efforts like covered train cars and coal piles, there's no way to completely
protect the community and the environment from the risks that coal exports would pose.
Both the Port and the City have taken unambiguous policy positions opposing the export of coal
from
Oakland. In February of 2014, Oakland's Port Commission voted unanimously to reject Bowie
Resource
Partners' proposal to export coal from the city-owned Charles P. Howard Terminal. And in July of
2014,
the City Council passed a resolution opposing the transport of fossil fuels, including coal, by rail
through
the city. The State of California has taken a complimentary position; In 2012, Assembly Joint
Resolution
35 of the state legislature stated opposition to coal being exported from the United States to
countries
with fewer environmental regulations.
CCIG's secretive project to export Utah coal would go against these precedents -- not to mention
their
own promises to the community -- and betray the best interests of the residents of Oakland.
Please stand with every Oakland resident who cares about global climate and community and
worker
health in opposing this project and any other that would export fossil fuels from Oakland's ports.
Public
land should be used for the public good, not for a dirty export project that would put us all in
danger.
Sincerely,
Mr. Kyle Swenson
6449 Colby St
Oakland, CA 94618-1309
(925) 876-3825

From: Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter <information@sierraclub.org> on

behalf of Igor Tregub <sierra@sierraclub.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:18 PM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
Don't allow coal exports from Oakland
Apr 30, 2015
Ms. Lynette McElhaney
3rd Floor
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612-1932
Dear Ms. McElhaney,
I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the export of coal from the bulk facility at the
Oakland Army
Base, under development by California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG), in partnership with
the City
of Oakland and the State of California. Despite multiple promises from CCIG President Phil Tagami
not to
export coal from that facility, it appears that the company has been quietly pursuing a project to
export
five to six million tons of Utah coal out of Oakland each year.
Coal is bad for the climate, community and worker health, and the environment, and both
Oakland and
California have standing policies opposing the export of dirty energy.
California is a coal-free state for good reason, and shouldn't be enabling other countries with less
stringent environmental protections to burn it. Coal is the most carbon-intensive of all the fossil
fuels
and coal is the largest contributor to climate disruption. Whether it's burned here or abroad, the
effect

of coal on global climate will be felt by everyone. While California is setting aggressive carbonreduction
targets, this terminal would allow the most carbon-polluting fuel to be brought to market, with
devastating consequences.
Coal is bad for our local workforce, organized labor, and worker health. Terminals that ship coal
provide
far fewer jobs than terminals that ship containers or general cargo -- and that means fewer jobs
for
Oakland residents. Coal is increasingly an anti-union industry. With the imminent closing of the
Deer
Creek mine in Emery County, Utah, there will be no union mines operating in that state. Oakland
should
support projects that create good union jobs.
Longshoremen that work at coal-export facilities are exposed to serious health risks. Prolonged,
direct
exposure to coal dust has been linked to health issues such as chronic bronchitis, decreased lung
function, emphysema, cancer, and heart disease.
Coal dust and particulate matter from trains' diesel engines pose significant threats to Bay Area
air and
water quality. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust and contains mercury, arsenic, uranium,
and
hundreds of other toxins harmful to humans and marine animals. West Oakland residents are
already
twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma as the average Alameda County resident,
and are
also more likely to die of cancer and heart and lung disease. The increased freight traffic carrying
coal
would intensify the air pollution already plaguing West Oakland, threatening local public health
and
safety.
Even with mitigation efforts like covered train cars and coal piles, there's no way to completely
protect
the community and the environment from the risks that coal exports would pose.
Both the Port and the City have taken unambiguous policy positions opposing the export of coal
from
Oakland. In February of 2014, Oakland's Port Commission voted unanimously to reject Bowie
Resource
Partners' proposal to export coal from the city-owned Charles P. Howard Terminal. And in July of
2014,
the City Council passed a resolution opposing the transport of fossil fuels, including coal, by rail
through
the city. The State of California has taken a complimentary position; In 2012, Assembly Joint
Resolution
35 of the state legislature stated opposition to coal being exported from the United States to
countries
with fewer environmental regulations.
CCIG's secretive project to export Utah coal would go against these precedents -- not to mention
their
own promises to the community -- and betray the best interests of the residents of Oakland.

Please stand with every Oakland resident who cares about global climate and community and
worker
health in opposing this project and any other that would export fossil fuels from Oakland's ports.
Public
land should be used for the public good, not for a dirty export project that would put us all in
danger.
Sincerely,
Mr. Igor Tregub
1043 Virginia St
Berkeley, CA 94710-1852

From: David Kurtz <dkurtz@electricimp.com>

Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 6:12 PM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
Environmental impact of coal shipped from port of Oakland?
Dear Councilmember McElhaney,
I just read this report in the Contra Costa times about Utah investment in the old Oakland Army
Base facility for the purpose of shipping coal and I am concerned about the environmental
impact of coal and coal dust. The article doesnt give any mention of what sort of impact studies
have been done or what their conclusions were. Do you have any insight into this?

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_27981684/unlikely-partners-utah-investing53-million-export-coal
Sincerely,
David Kurtz
Peralta + 12th Street

From: Farmer, Casey

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:17 AM
To:
Council President
Cc:
Wald, Zachary; Cook, Brigitte
Subject:
FW: Invitation to speak at May 26th Townhall: No Coal In Oakland
Attachments:
May 26 Forum Flyer.pdf
Please list as FYI on LGMs Calendar. We need to see how the issue unfolds by next week as to
whether
we want LGM there and whether we want her to speak. Sierra Club is aware of this.
BC - are you able to attend to help us read the WO community and to build relationships with St.
Patricks folks in Prescott?
Best,
Casey
From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman [mailto:jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:16 PM
To: Farmer, Casey
Subject: Invitation to speak at May 26th Townhall: No Coal In Oakland
Hi Casey,
We'd love to have Lynette join us at the town hall forum on May 26th at 7pm at St. Patrick's
Church at 1023 Peralta St.
I've just heard that Diego Gonzalez will be there representing Assemblymember Rob Bonta. One
of our volunteers invited his office to join us.
Thanks!
Jess
-Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Manager

Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter

2530 San Pablo Ave, Suite I
Berkeley, CA 94702
Office: (510) 848 - 0800 ext. 304
Cell: (510) 693-7677
jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter: exploring, enjoying, and protecting the planet for over
90 years. Donate here to continue that legacy.

From: Wald, Zachary

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:50 PM
To:
Farmer, Casey
Cc:
McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte
Subject:
FW: No Coal in Oakland Protest (against Tagami) on Thurs
8:30am/Rotunda Building!
Im worried that we are getting behind on this issue. I would like to release our statement widely
before
the demonstration tomorrow and possibly say that LGM will join the demonstrators.
Z
Zachary Wald
Chief of Staff for Lynette McElhaney
Oakland City Councilmember, District 3

510-238-7032

From: Karen Hester [mailto:karen@hesternet.net]

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Ruth Miller; Josh Levinger; Dave Campbell; Ginger Jui; Naomi Schiff; Sandy Threfall; Lisa
Rudman;
Jennifer West >; Jennifer Ryan; Liz Brisson; Cecilie; Carolyn Hunt; James Vann; Joel Ramos; Matt
Burry;
Tamar Schnepp; Starr, Iris; Andrew Jones; Steve Snider; Jeff Goodwin
Cc: Chia; Jerry Wachtel; Margaret Gordon; Kalb, Dan; Bolotina, Olga; Luby, Oliver; Wald, Zachary
Subject: No Coal in Oakland Protest (against Tagami) on Thurs 8:30am/Rotunda Building!
Heres where Ill be Thurs am after a Bike to Work day pancake breakfast at Frank Ogawa!
Come join me as we try and stop Tagami from polluting our City even more than just billboards!
Facebook page here
Phil Tagami, developer of the new Global Logistics Center at the former Oakland Army Base in
West
Oakland, promised in 2013 that "CCIG is publicly on record as having no interest or involvement
in
the pursuit of coal-related operations at the former Oakland Army Base.
Now, in 2015, Tagami is poised to allow four Utah Counties to use public money to invest $53
million
to turn the new Oakland port project into a massive coal export terminal. If allowed to move
forward,
millions of tons of dirty, toxic, climate-killing coal will roll through West Oakland on mile long
trains,
creating toxic pollution in a community already overburdened by heavy industry.
Karen Hester
karen@hesternet.net
510-654-6346
hesternet.net
Bites at the Lake: Mobile Food and Family Fun every Sunday
Bites Off Broadway: Fridays starting May 15
From: Margaret Gordon <margaret.woeip@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:19 PM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte; Wald, Zachary; Farmer, Casey;
Kalb, Dan
Subject:
Fwd: Material for your edification
Attachments:
0696 BayAreaExportsLabor Fact_01_low-2.pdf; 0696
BayAreaExportsFact_07_x1a.pdf; Oakland Coal Exports Fact Sheet
(1).docx
FYI,

Ms. Margaret Gordon

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Michelle Myers <michelle.myers@sierraclub.org>
Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:16 PM
Subject: Material for your edification
To: Oakland Fossil Fuel Resistance <oakland-fossil-fuel-resistance-list@sierraclub.org>
Here is nearly everything we have on the issue. 3 fact sheets we've already developed are
attached.
I would start here:
SF Bay Chapter Yodeler Story on Coal: http://theyodeler.org/?p=10328
Local stories:
http://www.mercurynews.com/my-town/ci_27981682/unlikely-partners-utah-investing-53million-export-coal
http://grist.org/news/oakland-votes-to-keep-coal-and-oil-trains-away/
Utah stories:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2425141-155/utah-coal-california-here-it-comes
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2448266-155/editorial-coal-port-looks-like-a
Coal general this is about the industry as a whole the fact that this might be a bad business
venture is worth mentioning.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/13/coal-j13.html
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21647287-more-countries-turn-against-coalproducers-face-prolonged-weakness-prices-depths
This is a great video about what happens to first nation people when coal is mined.
https://news.vice.com/video/cursed-by-coal-mining-the-navajo-nation
Click through to see the petcoke exports story!
I can't wait to shut this down with you all!!!
Onward.
-Michelle Myers
Chapter Director
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
2530 San Pablo Ave, Suite 1
Berkeley, CA 94702
Office: (510) 848 - 0800 ext. 323
Cell: (415) 646 - 6930
Explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth.
-You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oakland Fossil
Fuel Resistance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oaklandfossil-fuel-resistance-list+unsubscribe@sierraclub.org.
To post to this group, send email to oakland-fossil-fuel-resistance-list@sierraclub.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/d/msgid/oakland-fossil-fuel-resistancelist/CA%2Baj9-aTAdA%3DeaqUj2tWx2VinpXQ5EHn%2BXe2Lceh45%3DiqsetQ%40mail.gmail.com.

From: Margaret Gordon <margaret.woeip@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 5:43 PM
To:
Cook, Brigitte; McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
Fwd: Story on Oakland Army Base from Bay Area News Group
FYI,
OAB receiving loan from Utah to bring coal to City of Oakland new port.
-http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_27981684/unlikely-partners-utahinvesting-53-million-export-coal
-Ms. Margaret Gordon

From: Margaret Gordon <margaret.woeip@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 6:41 PM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte; Farmer, Casey; Wald, Zachary;
Kalb, Dan
Subject:
Fwd: Tagami's Bad Bet
FYI,
MG
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Kevin Mulvey <kevin.mulvey@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Tagami's Bad Bet
To: Shoshana Wechsler <swechs@sonic.net>
Cc: bay-area-coal-exports-list@sierraclub.org, "oakland-fossil-fuel-resistancelist@sierraclub.org" <oakland-fossil-fuel-resistance-list@sierraclub.org>

Great article Shoshana. Demand is projected to remain strong in Asia but since there is an
excess of supply (Australia, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, US) on international markets which
will continue, prices will remain under pressure. Utah is trying to find a market for the shrinking
US one, and Oakland shouldn't bear the brunt of their risky bet.
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Shoshana Wechsler <swechs@sonic.net> wrote:
Further evidence that coal exports to Asia might not be a good long-term investment:
http://tinyurl.com/qjltfdj
-You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oakland Fossil Fuel
Resistance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oakland-fossilfuel-resistance-list+unsubscribe@sierraclub.org.
To post to this group, send email to oakland-fossil-fuel-resistance-list@sierraclub.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/d/msgid/oakland-fossil-fuel-resistancelist/C60BD942-6086-4305-8F15-AC423995C799%40sonic.net.

Subject:
Location:

HOLD - Army Base Coal

TBD

Start: Tue 6/16/2015 5:00 PM

End: Tue 6/16/2015 6:00 PM
Show Time As:
Tentative
Recurrence: (none)
Organizer: McElhaney, Lynette
Required Attendees:
Lynette Gibson McElhaney; Erika Broyard, Assistant to the President;
Wald,
Zachary
Winnie will send actual invite

From: Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter <information@sierraclub.org> on

behalf of Jilchristina Vest <sierra@sierraclub.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 12:36 AM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
I live here!! Don't export coal into my neighborhood!
May 23, 2015
Ms. Lynette McElhaney
3rd Floor
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612-1932

Dear Ms. McElhaney,

I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the export of coal from the bulk facility at the
Oakland Army
Base, under development by California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG), in partnership with
the City
of Oakland and the State of California. Despite multiple promises from CCIG President Phil Tagami
not to
export coal from that facility, it appears that the company has been quietly pursuing a project to
export
five to six million tons of Utah coal out of Oakland each year.
Coal is bad for the climate, community and worker health, and the environment, and both
Oakland and
California have standing policies opposing the export of dirty energy.
California is a coal-free state for good reason, and shouldn't be enabling other countries with less
stringent environmental protections to burn it. Coal is the most carbon-intensive of all the fossil
fuels
and coal is the largest contributor to climate disruption. Whether it's burned here or abroad, the
effect
of coal on global climate will be felt by everyone. While California is setting aggressive carbonreduction
targets, this terminal would allow the most carbon-polluting fuel to be brought to market, with
devastating consequences.
Coal is bad for our local workforce, organized labor, and worker health. Terminals that ship coal
provide
far fewer jobs than terminals that ship containers or general cargo -- and that means fewer jobs
for
Oakland residents. Coal is increasingly an anti-union industry. With the imminent closing of the
Deer
Creek mine in Emery County, Utah, there will be no union mines operating in that state. Oakland
should
support projects that create good union jobs.
Longshoremen that work at coal-export facilities are exposed to serious health risks. Prolonged,
direct
exposure to coal dust has been linked to health issues such as chronic bronchitis, decreased lung
function, emphysema, cancer, and heart disease.
Coal dust and particulate matter from trains' diesel engines pose significant threats to Bay Area
air and
water quality. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust and contains mercury, arsenic, uranium,
and
hundreds of other toxins harmful to humans and marine animals. West Oakland residents are
already
twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma as the average Alameda County resident,
and are
also more likely to die of cancer and heart and lung disease. The increased freight traffic carrying
coal
would intensify the air pollution already plaguing West Oakland, threatening local public health
and
safety.

Even with mitigation efforts like covered train cars and coal piles, there's no way to completely
protect
the community and the environment from the risks that coal exports would pose.
Both the Port and the City have taken unambiguous policy positions opposing the export of coal
from
Oakland. In February of 2014, Oakland's Port Commission voted unanimously to reject Bowie
Resource
Partners' proposal to export coal from the city-owned Charles P. Howard Terminal. And in July of
2014,
the City Council passed a resolution opposing the transport of fossil fuels, including coal, by rail
through
the city. The State of California has taken a complimentary position; In 2012, Assembly Joint
Resolution
35 of the state legislature stated opposition to coal being exported from the United States to
countries
with fewer environmental regulations.
CCIG's secretive project to export Utah coal would go against these precedents -- not to mention
their
own promises to the community -- and betray the best interests of the residents of Oakland.
Please stand with every Oakland resident who cares about global climate and community and
worker
health in opposing this project and any other that would export fossil fuels from Oakland's ports.
Public
land should be used for the public good, not for a dirty export project that would put us all in
danger.
Sincerely,
Ms. Jilchristina Vest
831 Center St
Oakland, CA 94607-1915
(510) 919-5073

From: Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter <information@sierraclub.org> on

behalf of Jil Christina <sierra@sierraclub.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 1:06 AM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
NO CAOL COAL IN OAKLAND
May 23, 2015
Ms. Lynette McElhaney
3rd Floor
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612-1932
Dear Ms. McElhaney,

DO NOT FUCKING BUILD THIS SHIT IN MY COMMUNITY!!!!! HOW DARE YOU????

Sincerely,
Ms. Jil Christina
831 Center St
Oakland, CA 94607-1915

Oakland Army Base Redevelopment, Yes!

Coal exports out of Oakland, NO!
Two Potential Coal Export Facilities in Oakland
Oakland Army Base Redevelopment (OARB) Project Berth 7
Developer Phil Tagami is telling certain people that the bulk facility will include coal but
has not been forthright with community leaders when asked about this prospect. OARB is
moving ahead and is well into permitting. The CEQA documents do not mention coal, and
the Port staff indicates that they see huge community opposition associated with coal.
We need to prove them right! 1
Port of Oakland Berth 33 Bulk Terminal
This project would potentially bring 2.5-9 Million Tons of product though Oakland a year.
That means about 8-24 trains a week or 1-4 trains /day. A feasibility study for a bulk
terminal was completed in 2012 with the potential developers being the Port of Oakland,
Manyuan Coal (China), Kevin Swope, or possibly Metro Ports. We need to tell them that
coal is not an acceptable commodity for Oakland!
Where would the coal come from?
Coal trains originating from the Powder River Basin (PRB) or the Utah/Colorado Region
will potentially pass through many communitiespossibly Sacramento, Richmond,
Stockton, Pittsburg, Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modestobefore reaching the Port of
Oakland or OARB.2
Why is coal the wrong choice for Oakland?
Coal Exports Would Negatively Impact Health, Safety, Air Quality, Traffic 3, and
the local Economy

West Oakland residents are already twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma
and 3 times more likely to require an emergency room visit for asthma than the
average California resident.4 People residing near the Port of Oakland had an
elevated cancer risk factor of over 10 chances in a million due to diesel particulate
matter (PM) from Port operations. 5

1 City of Oakland is the lead agency for the project and the Port is a responsible agency,
2Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Map, October 29, 2013, http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/coal_energy.pdf
3 See Oakland Bulk Rail Terminal Feasibility Study, prepared for the Port of Oakland by Trans Systems, September 7, 2012.
Obtained from the Port via a public records request.

4 Moxie Loeffler, D.O., MPH Candidate 2014, Alta Bates and Summit Asthma Burden 110313.pdf,
https://docs.google.com/a/sierraclub.org/viewer?
a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1423001d3b0e3f14&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui%3D2%26ik
%3Dfe6bf6dd0a%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1423001d3b0e3f14%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid
%3Df_hnp9o5rx0%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRO8CsQ77dEu8cioFATc3DYNYWMCQ

5Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Neighborhood Knowledge for Change: The West Oakland
Environmental Indicators Project, January 2002, http://www.pacinst.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/neighborhood_knowledge_for_change3.pdf

Coal dust generated during loading and unloading of trains and ships would
increase particulate matter pollution. Health risks include decreased lung capacity,
increased childhood bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia,6 emphysema, and heart
disease.7
Businesses near the coal facility would suffer sight impacts, aesthetics, noise,
nuisance of coal dust, traffic, etc..10
Train traffic increases could be quite significant and entail many new mile-long
open top 120+ car coal trains each day. Increased train movement and switching
operations across 7th Street would frequently block intersections and would pose a
safety concern for users of a nearby park.10
A coal export terminal (known generally as a bulk terminal) has many fewer jobs
than what are associated with container or bulk-break (big machines, pallets)
shipping. For instance, a Port of Seattle study found that 0.09 jobs per 1000 tons
for bulk were needed vs. 0.57 for containers or 4.2 jobs for break-bulk.8

Frequent coal train traffic and coal dust from trains, open coal storage piles,
coal loading/unloading at the Port or OARB would:
o Put the health and public safety of residents in West Oakland, and
all along the rail line, at risk.
o Discourage new and existing businesses from coming to the area,
and is in direct conflict with the West Oakland Redevelopment
project goal of providing environmentally sound uses for the area. 9
o Encourage displacement of residents.
o Have a significant negative impact on the market property values of
home and businesses within the vicinity of the rail line, which also
equates to a tax revenue loss. In one study of the impacts of a new
coal export facility, those losses amounted to at least $265 million
in property values and an annual tax revenue loss of more than $2.6
million.10
From:Roje Consulting <robert@rojeconsulting.com>
Sent:Friday, May 01, 2015 4:34 PM
To: McElhaney, Lynette
Subject: Oakland Global Newsletter

Brought to you by the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center and California
Capital & Investment Group
6 Brook, Robert, et al, Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific Statement of the
American Heart Association, May 2010.

7 Landen, Deborah, et al, Coal Dust Exposure and Mortality from Ischemic Heart Disease Among a Cohort of U.S. Coal Miners, July
2011, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 53, Issue 10.

8See http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/coal/coal-FAQ.pdf
9The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland, Redevelopment Plan for the West Oakland Redevelopment Project, Adopted
November 18, 2003, Amended through October 19, 2010,
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak026353.pdf

10 See Eastman Property Value Study, October 12, 2012, http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/Eastman-Study.pdf. Study assumed a
conservative 1% value loss for all structures within 600 ft of the rail tracks where coal would be shipped.

OAKLAND GLOBAL NEWS

Monthly Updates on the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center Project

Oakland Global News, April 2015

Dear Reader,
Oakland Global News is a monthly newsletter for readers
interested in staying current as the Oakland Global Trade &
Logistics Center (former Oakland Army Base) project evolves.
We hope you enjoy our April 2015 update.

Terminal Operator Has Local History

Jerry Bridges
A key component of the Oakland Global Project is a new marine bulk
commodities terminal located on a wharf at the western edge of the former
Oakland Army Base. It will be capable of importing and exporting commodities
such as potash, grain, soda ash and lumber products, although the specific mix
of those commodities has not yet been determined. California Capital &
Investment Group (CCIG), Oakland
Global's lead developer and partner with the City of Oakland, is currently
negotiating with a terminal operator, Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS) for a
lease to operate the terminal. TLS is led by
Jerry Bridges -- former Executive Director of the Port of Oakland -- and has
deep roots in the city.
Bridges started his logistics career in trucking and then moved on to maritime
operations with Sea-Land Services, where he ran terminals on the East and
West Coasts. Bridges served as Director of Maritime at the Port of Oakland and
later Executive Director at the port before accepting a job as Director of the
Virginia Port Authority in 2007.
Bridges said that Oakland's new commodities facility could see 6.7 to 7.5
million metric tons of commodities pass through the terminal when it is up and
running. That represents a major benefit to the businesses involved, as well as
the city, according to Bridges. As a subtenant of CCIG, TLS also is subject to
the
unique local hire policies and environmental rules that are part of CCIG's
contract with the City of Oakland.
A binding community jobs agreement dictates that at least 50 percent of
Oakland Global Project work hours must be performed by local residents. For
each construction trade, 20 percent of work hours must be handled by
apprentices and at least 25 percent of work hours performed by apprentices
are to be

completed by "disadvantaged workers," which include ex-offenders.

Bridges noted that he has returned from Virginia to live in the area and wants
to see the community prosper."We think this (commodities) facility -- from the
time of construction - through when it is operating -- will have a tremendously
positive impact in terms or jobs and on the community," Bridges said.
City Hires Veteran Development Expert
Claudia Cappio says she is "excited as hell" to be back in Oakland A former City
of Oakland Development Director who has extensive Claudia Cappio
experience in housing and economic development at the local and state level,
returned to the city on April 27 to serve as an assistant city administrator.
The hiring of Claudia Cappio was lauded by Governor Jerry Brown, Oakland
Mayor Libby Schaaf, and local builders who believe that Cappio's experience
and know-how will serve Oakland well as development gains momentum.
Cappio will join a City Administrator's Office in transition. Interim City
Administrator John Flores will step down on July 1 when Sabrina Landreth,
Emeryville's city manager takes over (see Landreth interview below). Landreth
also worked in Oakland for several years before leaving for Emeryville.
Cappio served as Oakland's Development Director and as director of the city's
Base Reuse Authority from 2000-2007. In those roles, Cappio became familiar
with the Oakland Global Project - the transformation of the former Oakland
Army base into a modern logistics facility. She also worked on the Fox Theater
project, Brooklyn Basin, and then-Mayor Brown's 10K downtown housing
initiative.
"You have to look back the Army Base and really appreciate how long this took
- all the way back to 1995," said Cappio. "Thank goodness we have something
rolling there, it's a huge effort and highly impressive. The development team
had to take the long view and persevere."
Given her background, Cappio is a welcome arrival for the Oakland Global
project, which has seen city administrators come and go during the past 8
years. The project works directly with the City Administrator's office as part of
a 2012 development agreement signed by the city, lead developer California
Capital &
Investment Group (CCIG) and Prologis. Cappio said she is "excited as hell" to
get another opportunity to
work in Oakland and honored to play a part in the city's future. A 30-year
resident of the city, Cappio said she views the city as poised to truly thrive.
Cappio spent much of the past seven years working under Brown as Executive
Director of both the California State Department of Housing and Community
Development and the California Housing Finance Agency.
Q&A With New City Administrator
In February the Oakland Global News reported that the City of Oakland had
hired Sabrina Landreth as City Administrator, a role that is central to a Sabrina
Landreth functional City Hall and critical to the Oakland Global project, which
is a partnership between the city and developers. Landreth, 39, is the current
Emeryville City Manager after serving in Oakland government for many years,
most recently as
Deputy City Administrator. She is scheduled to start work on July 1, 2015 and
answered a few questions related to returning to Oakland at a dynamic time a new Mayor, renewed interest in development and on-going financial
challenges.

Q: What's your impression of the Oakland Global Project?

A: "It's a gateway project for the city in terms of bringing good jobs to the city
in the long run and because of its location just east of the Bay Bridge. Having
grown up in Oakland, it's exciting to see something finally happening there.
It's also a true partnership with the city."
Q: The Oakland Global project has worked with seven City Administrators since
2008, when the city selected California Capital & Investment Group as the
master developer for the 150-acre former Army Base property. The project
welcomes stability in the City Administrator's office. Will that happen?
A: A central focus of mine is not only to do my job well, but also to bring in
really experienced people and to create long-term stability. There will be more
announcements to come about hiring in the City Administrator's office, but I
can tell you that I have received unsolicited offers from people who are very
qualified and care about the city and want to come back to work or volunteer.
Q: Where is Oakland headed and how is it different than when you were here
several years ago?
A: It seems like my entire life Oakland has been on the brink of reaching its
potential. It has always had all the assets, but how do you make it work?
People have been looking for stability and leadership and I believe now is the
time. There is a state of mind people really want to get things done.
Caltrans Shifts to New Temp Building
Container construction part of a recent trend A Caltrans Bay Bridge project
facility on the westernmost edge
of the former Oakland Army Base will soon relocate about 200 yards east on
the base to make way for construction of a new marine bulk commodities
terminal as part of the Oakland Global project. Caltrans has housed its
operation at the foot of the bridge for the past several years as the new bridge
has been constructed and the old dismantled. The area will soon be used to
renovate an aging wharf that will feature improved rail access and new
equipment used to move bulk and oversized goods in and out of Oakland.
Caltrans' new temporary offices and storage space will be assembled out of
cargo containers, according to Kevin Bohm, owner of Alarcon-Bohm, an
Oakland-based construction firm that is leading the work. The two-story
container complex will measure 440 feet long and 76 feet wide. It will comprise
30,000 square feet, Bohm said. Caltrans is expected to need the structure for
approximately the next three years.
Bohm worked on one of the first container projects in the United States in San
Francisco's Hayes Valley in 2010-2011. Dubbed "Proxy," that project was
intended to temporarily enliven space made vacant by the San Francisco
Central Freeway teardown and the subsequent recession. It remains popular as
a retail and food destination and spurred a trend of cargo container
construction in the Bay Area. Container construction works particularly well for
temporary uses because it lowers construction costs and is more easily
removable than standard foundation and framing construction. In addition to
the current Caltrans project, Bohm lead the construction crew that demolished
eight massive an obsolete Army warehouses in order to make way for modern
logistics facilities and new warehouses. The warehouse demo was one of
the first tasks on the Oakland Global project, which officially broke ground in
November 2013.

Army Base Photography

As a recurring feature, the Oakland Global News presents photography from
the Army Base.The photos below were shotby Dan Nourse.
Wildflowers at the former Army Base West Gateway
Backhoe
Steel storm drain repair shoring box
Issue 31
IN THIS ISSUE
Bulk Terminal Operator
New City Hire
Q&A wiith new City Admin
Caltrans shifts east
Photos
QUICK LINKS
Oakland Global
Website
Stay informed
Thank you for taking the time to learn more about the Oakland Global Trade &
Logistics Center
development. I believe that the Oakland Global Newsletter will prove to be a
useful tool for
staying informed and current on this important project going forward.
Sincerely,
Phil Tagami

Forward this email

This email was sent to lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com by
robert@rojeconsulting.com |
Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe | Privacy
Policy.

Roje Consulting | 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza | Suite 385 | Oakland | CA | 94612

From: Wald, Zachary

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:18 AM
To:
Brian Maffly
Cc: McElhaney, Lynette (lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com); Farmer, Casey;
Cook, Brigitte
Subject:
RE: coal exports through Oakland
Brian
That is fascinating information. I am forwarding your email to my boss.
What is the deadline for your story?
Thank you,
Zac Wald
Zachary Wald
Chief of Staff for Lynette McElhaney
Oakland City Councilmember, District 3
510-238-7032
From: Brian Maffly [mailto:bmaffly@sltrib.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:31 AM
To: Wald, Zachary
Subject: coal exports through Oakland
Dear Zac, I cover environmental issues for the Salt Lake Tribune. Im hoping to speak
with you
or an Oakland city council member we are doing for a story on efforts to build and
operate coal
transloading facilities in your city for the purpose of exporting Utah coal abroad. Four
coalproducing counties in Utah have borrowed $53 million from the state to invest in a
proposed
bulk freight loading complex CCIG is developing at the former Oakland army base
adjacent to
the port of Oakland. The Port commission rejected such a proposal last year for the
Howard
Terminal. We understand local activists are very opposed to coal being moved through
the city,
but we would like to hear from city officials about this.
I hope you can give us a call. Thanks!
Brian Maffly
public lands and environment reporter
The Salt Lake Tribune
90 S. 400 West Suite 700

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

o: 801-257-8605
c: 801-573-2382
bmaffly@sltrib.com
Follow me on twitter at www.twitter.com/brianmaffly
From:
Farmer, Casey
Sent:Friday, May 08, 2015 4:26 PM
To: Wald, Zachary; McElhaney, Lynette
Cc: Cook, Brigitte
Subject: RE: Draft Press Release/E-News - Oakland Says "No! to Coal
Shipments at the
Port of Oakland
A few thoughts:
*
Wed need to bring forth an ordinance (not reso) if we wanted to
mandate anything.
*
I think there is a piece missing about West Oakland having a long-history
of poor air quality and
environmental justice issues and environmental racism.

From: Wald, Zachary

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 2:02 PM
To: McElhaney, Lynette
Cc: Cook, Brigitte; Farmer, Casey
Subject: RE: Draft Press Release/E-News - Oakland Says "No! to Coal
Shipments at the Port of Oakland
Ok Heres an updated version with the Hell removed from your quote (and
from the title) and other
changes
Zac
Contact:
Lynette Gibson McElhaney, City Council President: 510.932.1938
Zac Wald, Chief of Staff: 510.282.2971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OAKLAND SAYS NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND
May 8, 2015 Last weeks news headline Unlikely Partners: Utah Investing
$53 Million to
Export Coal Through Oakland Port, came as a shock to Oaklands political
leaders, who have
consistently opposed the export of hazardous fossil fuels due to safety and
environmental
concerns.

City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney says that she plans to bring a
formal
resolution to the City Council to consider the health and safety impacts of a
possible deal to
bring thousands of coal-filled rail cars from Utah, to be shipped out of the Port
of Oakland.
The resolution from the Council President will call for a public hearing in front
of the City
Council, to discuss the health and safety impacts to West Oakland and to Port
workers from
transporting and processing coal at the Army Base. The planned public hearing
will be a chance
for the City Council to hear from the public and from experts, on the health
and safety effects
of having a coal export terminal operating at the Port.
Says McElhaney, Since coal export was not contemplated when the Army Base
Development
project was approved, the community has not yet had the chance to make
their voices heard
on this subject.
The Oakland City Council, and the Port Board of Commissioners have already
taken stances
against coal exports, specifically:
In February of 2014, the Board of Port Commissions rejected a proposal to ship
coal from one
of their terminals.
In June of 2014, Councilmember McElhaney and her colleagues passed a
resolution opposing
the transport of coal, oil, petcoke (a byproduct of the oil refining process) and
other hazardous
materials by railways and waterways within the City. That resolution was
advisory only, since
the City does not have jurisdiction over the railways.
The decision to ship coal out of the Port of Oakland has implications beyond
the health of local
residents who may be affected by coal dust or potentially hazardous spills.
According to xxxx of the Bay Area Sierra Club, Utah and other coal producers
are so eager to
ship their product out of the country, because the domestic market has dried
up, as the United
States adopts cleaner forms of energy. West coast ports are rejecting new
coal-shipment
terminals because coal even if its burned somewhere far away is a dirty fuel
that has global

impacts in terms of climate change.

Councilmember Gibson McElhaney will introduce her resolution for scheduling
at the Oakland
City Council Rules Committee Hearing on May 14th, in the City Council
Chambers.
####
Zachary Wald
Chief of Staff for Lynette McElhaney
Oakland City Councilmember, District 3
510-238-7032
From: McElhaney, Lynette
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 5:05 PM
To: Wald, Zachary
Cc: Cook, Brigitte; Farmer, Casey
Subject: Re: Draft Press Release/E-News - Oakland Says "Hell No! to Coal
Shipments at the Port of
Oakland
Hell No in the Title ok. In the quote needs to be changed to ABSOLUTELY NOT"
Sent by Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney from my iPad
On May 6, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Wald, Zachary <ZWald@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
PRESS RELEASE
Contact:
Lynette Gibson McElhaney, City Council President: 510.932.1938
Zac Wald, Chief of Staff: 510.282.2971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OAKLAND SAYS HELL NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE
PORT OF OAKLAND
May 6, 2015 Last weeks news headline Unlikely Partners: Utah Investing
$53 Million to Export Coal Through Oakland Port, came as a shock to
Oaklands political leaders, who have consistently opposed the
export of hazardous fossil fuels do to safety and environmental concerns.
City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney says that she plans to bring a
formal resolution to the City Council to block the deal to bring thousands of
coal-filled rail cars from Utah to be shipped out of the Port of Oakland.
Says Councilmember Gibson McElhaney, The City Council has been abundantly
clear on this issue in the past, but apparently a reminder is needed. District 3
Residents have suffered major health impacts from their proximity to the Port.
We will not stand by and allow another major health risk be inflicted upon
them.

In February of 2014, the Board of Port Commissions rejected a proposal to ship

coal from one of their terminals. McElhaney hopes to introduce her resolution
jointly with members of the Port Commission.
In June of 2014, Councilmember McElhaney and her colleagues passed a
resolution opposing the transport of coal, oil, petcoke (a byproduct of the oil
refining process) and other hazardous materials by railways and waterways
within the City. That resolution was advisory only, since the City does not have
jurisdiction over the railways. The current resolution contemplated by
McElhaney would have a regulatory effects, since the City owns the land where
the coal shipment are being contemplated, and the Port has jurisdiction over
what travels in and out.
Councilmember Gibson McElhaney expressed frustration that this message has
not already been clearly heard by the Citys partners in developing the former
Army Base land (transferred to the City by the Federal Government). Says
McElhaney, I have supported the development of the former Army Base,
because the Port is an economic engine that has the potential to benefit all
Oaklanders. Does this mean that I believe that we should keep our economic
options open to include coal? Hell no!
The decision to ship coal out of the Port of Oakland has implications beyond
the health of local residents who may be affected by coal dust or potentially
hazardous spills.
According to xxxx of the Bay Area Sierra Club, Utah and other coal producers
are so eager to ship their product out of the country, because the domestic
market has dried up, as the United States adopts cleaner forms of energy.
West coast ports are rejecting new coal-shipment terminals because coal
even if its
burned somewhere far away is a dirty fuel that has global impacts in terms of
climate change.
####

From: McElhaney, Lynette

Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:51 AM
To:
David Kurtz
Cc:
Farmer, Casey
Subject:
Re: Environmental impact of coal shipped from port of Oakland?
David,
My staff and I just learned of this proposal last week and have begun making inquiries with the
Port of Oakland. I share your concerns and in fact, joined with my colleagues last year to ban
the shipping of hazardous materials through our city.

Casey Farmer is my policy director and is leading our efforts to both understand and respond to
these reports.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.
Casey: Let's prepare a public statement that can be released on our social media to keep the
public informed on our progress and concerns once you've concluded your research.
Kind regards, Lynette
Sent by Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney from my iPad
On Apr 27, 2015, at 6:14 PM, David Kurtz <dkurtz@electricimp.com> wrote:
Dear Councilmember McElhaney,
I just read this report in the Contra Costa times about Utah investment in the old Oakland Army
Base facility for the purpose of shipping coal and I am concerned about the environmental
impact of coal and coal dust. The article doesnt give any mention of what sort of impact studies
have been done or what their conclusions were. Do you have any insight into this?
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_27981684/unlikely-partnersutah-investing-53-million-export-coal
Sincerely,
David Kurtz
Peralta + 12th Street

From: Wald, Zachary

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 5:10 PM
To:
jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org
Cc:
Cook, Brigitte
Subject:
Re: FW: Draft Press Release/E-News - Oakland Says "No! to Coal
Shipments at the Port of Oakland
Love it!
Zac Wald
Chief of Staff
Oakland City Council President
Lynette Gibson McElhaney
(510) 238-7032

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:45 PM -0700, "Jess Dervin-Ackerman" <jess.dervinackerman@sierraclub.org> wrote:

According to Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter, "Coal
producers are eager to keep burning this dirty energy source even as the United States moves
quickly toward a clean energy future. West coast ports are rejecting proposals like this because
coal, no matter where it is burned, is a dirty fuel that has global impacts in terms of climate
change. California has worked hard to be a coal free state, and it should stay that way."
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Wald, Zachary <ZWald@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Jess
Please edit and send back to Brigitte (ccd) here, and we will send it out.
Thanks,
Zac
Zachary Wald
Chief of Staff for Lynette McElhaney
Oakland City Councilmember, District 3
510-238-7032
Contact:
Lynette Gibson McElhaney, City Council President: 510.932.1938
Zac Wald, Chief of Staff: 510.282.2971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OAKLAND SAYS NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND
May 8, 2015 Last weeks news headline Unlikely Partners: Utah Investing $53 Million to Export
Coal Through Oakland Port, came as a shock to Oaklands political leaders, who have
consistently opposed the export of hazardous fossil fuels due to safety and environmental
concerns.
City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney says that she plans to bring a formal resolution
to the City Council to consider the health and safety impacts of a possible deal to bring
thousands of coal-filled rail cars from Utah, to be shipped out of the Port of Oakland.
The resolution from the Council President will call for a public hearing in front of the City Council,
to discuss the health and safety impacts to West Oakland and to Port workers from transporting
and processing coal at the Army Base. The planned public hearing will be a chance for the City
Council to hear from the public and from experts, on the health and safety effects of having a
coal export terminal operating at the Port.
Says McElhaney, Since coal export was not contemplated when the Army Base Development
project was approved, the community has not yet had the chance to make their voices heard on
this subject.
The Oakland City Council, and the Port Board of Commissioners have already taken stances
against coal exports, specifically:
In February of 2014, the Board of Port Commissions rejected a proposal to ship coal from one of
their terminals.
In June of 2014, Councilmember McElhaney and her colleagues passed a resolution opposing the
transport of coal, oil, petcoke (a byproduct of the oil refining process) and other hazardous

materials by railways and waterways within the City. That resolution was advisory only, since the
City does not have jurisdiction over the railways.
The decision to ship coal out of the Port of Oakland has implications beyond the health of local
residents who may be affected by coal dust or potentially hazardous spills.
According to Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the Bay Area Sierra Club, Utah and other coal producers
are so eager to ship their product out of the country, because the domestic market has dried up,
as the United States adopts cleaner forms of energy. West coast ports are rejecting new coalshipment terminals because coal even if its burned somewhere far away is a dirty fuel that
has global impacts in terms of climate change.
Councilmember Gibson McElhaney will introduce her resolution for scheduling at the Oakland
City Council Rules Committee Hearing on May 14th, in the City Council Chambers.
####
Zachary Wald
Chief of Staff for Lynette McElhaney
Oakland City Councilmember, District 3
510-238-7032
From: McElhaney, Lynette
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 5:05 PM
To: Wald, Zachary
Cc: Cook, Brigitte; Farmer, Casey
Subject: Re: Draft Press Release/E-News - Oakland Says "Hell No! to Coal Shipments at the Port of
Oakland
Hell No in the Title ok. In the quote needs to be changed to ABSOLUTELY NOT"
Sent by Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney from my iPad
On May 6, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Wald, Zachary <ZWald@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
PRESS RELEASE
Contact:
Lynette Gibson McElhaney, City Council President: 510.932.1938
Zac Wald, Chief of Staff: 510.282.2971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OAKLAND SAYS HELL NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE
PORT OF OAKLAND
May 6, 2015 Last weeks news headline Unlikely Partners: Utah Investing $53 Million to Export
Coal Through Oakland Port, came as a shock to Oaklands political leaders, who have
consistently opposed the export of hazardous fossil fuels do to safety and environmental
concerns.
City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney says that she plans to bring a formal resolution
to the City Council to block the deal to bring thousands of coal-filled rail cars from Utah to be
shipped out of the Port of Oakland.
Says Councilmember Gibson McElhaney, The City Council has been abundantly clear on this
issue in the past, but apparently a reminder is needed. District 3 Residents have suffered major
health impacts from their proximity to the Port. We will not stand by and allow another major
health risk be inflicted upon them.

In February of 2014, the Board of Port Commissions rejected a proposal to ship coal from one of
their terminals. McElhaney hopes to introduce her resolution jointly with members of the Port
Commission.
In June of 2014, Councilmember McElhaney and her colleagues passed a resolution opposing the
transport of coal, oil, petcoke (a byproduct of the oil refining process) and other hazardous
materials by railways and waterways within
the City. That resolution was advisory only, since the City does not have jurisdiction over the
railways. The current resolution contemplated by McElhaney would have a regulatory effects,
since the City owns the land where the coal
shipment are being contemplated, and the Port has jurisdiction over what travels in and out.
Councilmember Gibson McElhaney expressed frustration that this message has not already been
clearly heard by the Citys partners in developing the former Army Base land (transferred to the
City by the Federal Government). Says
McElhaney, I have supported the development of the former Army Base, because the Port is an
economic engine that has the potential to benefit all Oaklanders. Does this mean that I believe
that we should keep our economic options open to include coal? Hell no!
The decision to ship coal out of the Port of Oakland has implications beyond the health of local
residents who may be affected by coal dust or potentially hazardous spills.
According to xxxx of the Bay Area Sierra Club, Utah and other coal producers are so eager to
ship their product out of the country, because the domestic market has dried up, as the United
States adopts cleaner forms of energy. West coast
ports are rejecting new coal-shipment terminals because coal even if its burned somewhere far
away is a dirty fuel that has global impacts in terms of climate change.
####
-Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Manager
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
2530 San Pablo Ave, Suite I
Berkeley, CA 94702
Office: (510) 848 - 0800 ext. 304
Cell: (510) 693-7677
jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter: exploring, enjoying, and protecting the planet for over
90 years. Donate here to continue that legacy.

From: McElhaney, Lynette

Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 1:50 PM
To:
Jilchristina Vest
Subject:
Re: I live here!! Don't export coal into my neighborhood!
Thank you for your letter. As you may know, I've taken a strong stance against coal shipments
into and through the city of Oakland. Please provide any articles or links that support the
information you've provided.

Kind regards, Lynette

Sent by Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney from my iPad
> On May 23, 2015, at 2:38 AM, Jilchristina Vest <sierra@sierraclub.org> wrote:
>
>
> May 23, 2015
>
> Ms. Lynette McElhaney
> 3rd Floor
> 1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
> Oakland, CA 94612-1932
>
> Dear Ms. McElhaney,
>
> I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the export of coal from the bulk facility at the
Oakland Army Base, under development by > California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG), in
partnership with the City of Oakland and the State of California. Despite multiple promises from
CCIG President Phil Tagami not to export coal from that facility, it appears that the company has
been quietly pursuing a project to export five to six million tons of Utah coal out of Oakland each
year.
>
> Coal is bad for the climate, community and worker health, and the environment, and both
Oakland and California have standing policies opposing the export of dirty energy.
>
> California is a coal-free state for good reason, and shouldn't be enabling other countries with
less stringent environmental protections to burn it. Coal is the most carbon-intensive of all the
fossil fuels and coal is the largest contributor to climate disruption. Whether it's burned here or
abroad, the effect of coal on global climate will be felt by everyone. While California is setting
aggressive carbon-reduction targets, this terminal would allow the most carbon-polluting fuel to
be brought to market, with devastating consequences.
>
> Coal is bad for our local workforce, organized labor, and worker health. Terminals that ship coal
provide far fewer jobs than terminals that ship containers or general cargo -- and that means
fewer jobs for Oakland residents. Coal is increasingly an anti-union industry. With the imminent
closing of the Deer Creek mine in Emery County, Utah, there will be no union mines operating in
that state. Oakland should support projects that create good union jobs.
>
> Longshoremen that work at coal-export facilities are exposed to serious health risks.
Prolonged, direct exposure to coal dust has been linked to health issues such as chronic
bronchitis, decreased lung function, emphysema, cancer, and heart disease.
> Coal dust and particulate matter from trains' diesel engines pose significant threats to Bay
Area air and water quality. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust and contains mercury, arsenic,
uranium, and hundreds of other toxins harmful to humans and marine animals. West Oakland
residents are already twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma as the average
Alameda County resident, and are also more likely to die of cancer and heart and lung disease.
The increased freight traffic carrying coal would intensify the air pollution already plaguing West
Oakland, threatening local public health and safety.
>
> Even with mitigation efforts like covered train cars and coal piles, there's no way to
completely protect the community and the environment from the risks that coal exports would
pose.
>
> Both the Port and the City have taken unambiguous policy positions opposing the export of
coal from Oakland. In February of 2014, Oakland's Port Commission voted unanimously to reject

Bowie Resource Partners' proposal to export coal from the city-owned Charles P. Howard
Terminal. And in July of 2014, the City Council passed a resolution opposing the transport of
fossil fuels, including coal, by rail through the city. The State of California has taken a
complimentary position; In 2012, Assembly Joint Resolution 35 of the state legislature stated
opposition to coal being exported from the United States to countries with fewer environmental
regulations.
>
> CCIG's secretive project to export Utah coal would go against these precedents -- not to
mention their own promises to the community -- and betray the best interests of the residents of
Oakland.
>
> Please stand with every Oakland resident who cares about global climate and community and
worker health in opposing this project and any other that would export fossil fuels from
Oakland's ports. Public land should be used for the public good, not for a dirty export project that
would put us all in danger.
> Sincerely,
>
> Ms. Jilchristina Vest
> 831 Center St
> Oakland, CA 94607-1915
> (510) 919-5073
>
>

From: Wald, Zachary

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:52 PM
To:
Farmer, Casey
Cc:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
RE: research based on call with NextGen on coal

Casey
The bulk terminal OBOT is being privately financed - not paid for by TIGER. The $200M going into
the bulk terminal includes the cost of the railway connection and is part and parcel of the railway
deal within the Citys land. The $200M is a big chunk of the Citys local match for the $240M
grant that we received. Thats the problem with losing the OBOT, is that it becomes more difficult
(but not necessarily impossible) to come up with the match.
I dont know how Phil proved to the City that he can get the funding, but I believe that he can.
I am aware that covered trains basically dont exist, they would have to custom build them.
Zachary Wald
Chief of Staff for Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Oakland City Council President, District 3 Representative
510-238-7032
From: Farmer, Casey
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 2:30 PM
To: Wald, Zachary
Cc: McElhaney, Lynette
Subject: research based on call with NextGen on coal
Next Gen is Tom Steyers group
They asked a good question:
*
How did Phil prove to the City that he could get capital partners to build out the OAB for
the bulk terminals? How did he have to prove to us that he could raise the funds? What parts of
the construction were covered by Tiger and which parts were funded privately? What did
ProLogis commit to funding? CCIG?
*
Interesting points that theyve researched:
o
They say that covered trains are very uncommon in the US. NextGen found examples
where companies said they were going to cover the train cars but they actually use a spray
(like hairspray) to cover the coal dust not actual air-tight covers.
o
According to their research, coal dust has been proven to be majorly harmful for railroads
themselves (it breaks down the rail line)
Best,
Casey Farmer
Policy Director and Community Liaison
City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Oakland, District 3
cfarmer@oaklandnet.com
Direct 510.238.7031
Cell 510.863.4059
From: Wald, Zachary
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 7:10 AM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; Farmer, Casey
Subject:
Re: rules request -draft language (FINAL BY 9:30am tomorrow)
L-

We can slow down on the rules request, but I believe that we need a press release in opposition
to coal right away.
The Mayor was supposed to do it jointly with us last night, but we should go ahead on our own if
she isn't ready.
Who are you talking to?- that information is what we told the Mayors office - something isn't right
Z
Zac Wald
Chief of Staff
Oakland City Council President
Lynette Gibson McElhaney
(510) 238-7032
From: McElhaney, Lynette
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: rules request -draft language (FINAL BY 9:30am tomorrow)
To: Farmer, Casey
Cc: Wald, Zachary
Zac,
It appears we need to review the Development Agreement that we passed. Despite assurances
from Phil/Mark at the time, it appears we may have adopted language that exempted the
development from any future regulations that we could pass. I recall us discussing what changes
to the DA needed to be made but I think you had only minor tweaks at that time. I may want to
go back and review the debate and proceedings. The Mayor is asking for a legal review as to
whether the Council can so bind future council action. We need to slow down a formal press
release. There is more to know before we go.
Thanks,
Sent by Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney from my iPad
On May 13, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Farmer, Casey < CFarmer@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Recommendation: Public Hearing on the Health and Safety Impacts of Coal Shipments In and/or
Out of the Oakland Army Base Property, Owned by the City of Oakland, In Accordance with Lease
Disposition and Development Agreement
(LDDA) Article 3, Section 3.4.2 Which Permits The City of Oakland to Investigate Potential Risks in
Order to Protect the Public Healthy and Safety of Occupants and Adjacent Neighbors.
Casey Farmer
Policy Director and Community Liaison
City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Oakland, District 3
cfarmer@oaklandnet.com
Direct 510.238.7031
Cell 510.863.4059

From: Farmer, Casey

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 9:56 PM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; Wald, Zachary
Subject:
Update on Coal Project

I spoke with Matt Davis from the Port this morning.

*
Matt confirmed my belief that because this project is on City land, the Port does not have
jurisdiction. The City could ban the passing of fossil fuels like coal since the project would stem
from City property.
*
Additionally, some Port Commissioners seem interested in banning coal from going out of
their terminals since technically the rail lines must connect with ships on Port property.
*
See email from Phil below. He is claiming to be distant from the TLS project. He appears to
be stalling.
*
Ill inquire with staff about what it would take to make our reso an ordinance so that we
ban coal exports not just oppose them.
Best,
Casey

From: Matthew Davis [mailto:mdavis@portoakland.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:01 AM
To: Farmer, Casey
Subject: FW: News inquires

From: Phil Tagami [mailto:tagami@californiagroup.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:00 PM
To: Chris Lytle; Libby Schaaf (lschaaf@oaklandnet.com)
Cc: Jerry A. Bridges; Mark McClure; Pat Cashman; Cole, Doug; Marc Stice; John Driscoll
Subject: News inquires
Chris,
Thank you for the call this morning, I always appreciate your insight and guidance. Per your
suggestion, I spoke to Jerry Bridges after our call and he indicated that you warned him that one
or more Port Board Members was looking to table or stop the rail operating agreement based on
a grossly inaccurate story recently printed in the Utah Richmond Reaper.
I sincerely hope the warning of any impact to our project was taken out of context.
To set the record straight, let me provide you some basic facts regarding the Oakland Global
Project, specifically the Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal (OBOT).
As you know, OBOT has entered into a lease option agreement with Terminal Logistic Solutions
(TLS) to operate a bulk commodity marine terminal.
Over the TLS option period we have had a dozen customer calls from a wide range of bulk
product types including; Pot ash, Soda ash, Borax, Magnetite, Copper concentrate, Sodium
bicarbonate, Heirloom grains, but no deals with any commodities have been finalized as TLS is in
its option period and has not completed its underwriting. Each commodity must have not only a
customer, but acceptance by the class 1 rail roads for frequency, duration, and volume.
Furthermore, volumes are limited by the 50% rail capacity afforded by the rail access agreement.
Any additional capacity would be subject to the Ports direction as the proposed OGRE operating
agreement would ensure that all customers would have equal access to the remaining capacity

and that capacity is not ours to give away. Again, the class 1 railroads have a large say in the
process of what is moving as well.
TLS has represented that they are looking at the right combination of committees to determine
which mix will offer the most stable revenue for them to commit $250m and be commercially
viable. They have emphasized that they were not hanging their hat on a single commodity, but
would keep an open mind as each commodity has its place in the global commodity market
place.
Having evidenced the know how and financial capacity, they are in the midst of closing their
underwriting and financing to deliver a state of the art facility we can all be proud of. The parties
anticipate that this will be done as early as September 2015.
Over the past 18 months there have been a number of media inquiries regarding the project that
have led to stories with a myopic narrative not considering the complexity of the supply chain
and a wide array of commodities or even the simple facts.
I assure you we have a high degree of sensitivity to the concerns of the environmental
community, Jerry Bridges has expressed the same for TLS. One Utah official desires for media
coverage and his hopes for Oakland should not shape the future of our years of work, significant
investment, and the project as a whole. I am currently in the process of arranging a $60 million
dollar credit facility for the City to bridge anticipated ACTC funding. Any diminishment delay or
cancellation of the project as planned would certainly suppress and kill that effort. I also think it
is critical while we are in underwriting that we ask the Port Board not take any action based on
presumption and dis-information but instead of hard facts.
I remain available to meet and discuss the specifics of our project and have a commitment from
Mr. Bridges to be available for the same. We both look forward to meeting with you and the
Mayor soon.
Respectfully,
Tagami
Phil Tagami
CEO & President
tagami@californiagroup.com
510.463.6343
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL & INVESTMENT GROUP
The Rotunda Building
300 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 340 | Oakland, CA 94612
Office 510.268.8500 | Facsimile 510.225.3954
Brokerage | Development | Management | Investments | Advisory
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
This e-mail, including any attachments hereto, is intended for use solely by the addressee(s)
named herein. If you are not a named
addressee of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this e-mail and of any attachments
hereto is strictly prohibited. If this e-mail has been transmitted to you in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone at (510)
268-8500 or via e-mail at tagami@californiagroup.com, and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this e-mail and destroy
any printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation.