JOINT HEARING OF THE SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND

NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEES

Emergency Response to Rail Accidents
Regulatory Framework
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
California State Capitol, Room 3191
9:30 am

Introduction and Overview

The rapid expansion of crude oil transportation by rail, coupled with a series of
derailments and explosions over the past year, has raised concerns about the safety
of rail transport of hazardous materials.
Railroads carry numerous hazardous materials on a regular basis, and a spill
associated with any of those materials could be disastrous. In 1991, California
experienced two such incidents that caused dire public health and environmental
impacts: the spills at Dunsmuir and Seacliff. As a result, the Legislature passed
several measures aimed at preventing and preparing for such accidents.

In recent years, the landscape of rail transport of hazardous materials has changed.
It is important to evaluate if California is prepared to respond quickly and
efficiently following a rail accident.
This background paper will cover (1) background on railroads and emergency
response, (2) railroad risk assessment, (3) transport of hazardous materials by rail,
and (4) crude oil background, spills and response.

I. Background on Railroads and Emergency Response

How much rail is in California?
Californias freight rail system has become increasingly important for
international, interstate, and intrastate trade. According to the Association of
American Railroads (AAR) in 2011, freight trains operated on 6,863 miles of rail
in California.

These freight lines can roughly be divided into four regions throughout the state:
Central Coast, Central Valley, Southern California, and Northern California. Rail
traffic is heaviest in southern California but is also high in other parts of the state,
such as the Central Valley and between Sacramento and Stockton.
There are only a handful of major entries to California by rail: two routes from
Klamath Falls, Oregon; three routes from Nevada through Quincy, Truckee, and
Barstow (to Las Vegas); and two routes from Arizona through Needles and Yuma.
Of these seven routes, many are located in mountainous regions of the state and
3

contain some of Californias steepest rail grades. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) has identified local safety hazard sites along five of them.

Primary Rail Freight Corridors. Image from National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment
Study, 2007

Many of Californias rail lines pass over or near bodies of water. In particular,
railroad tracks often follow rivers and major creeks because the ground is typically
more level in those areas. Two of the best known routes are the Feather River
route from Portola to Oroville and the Sacramento River route through Mount
Shasta, Dunsmuir, and Lake Shasta. Rail lines also run adjacent to the Pacific
Ocean, such as the Coast Route between Vandenberg and San Diego.
Rail lines frequently pass through residential areas and regions of high population
density. This is particularly true in southern California, where high population
4

density overlaps with heavy rail traffic. In addition, most towns in California have
a freight railroad that runs through or near it.

In 2011, 155.6 million tons of freight originated in, terminated in, or traveled
through California by rail. Freight trains brought in 97.4 million tons of material
into California on more than 3 million carloads. The five most common
commodities were intermodal (e.g., containerized products, 27.8 million tons),
farm products (14.0 million tons), food products (12.4 million tons), chemicals
(11.1 million tons), and primary metal products (4.5 million tons).

Historic Rail Accidents in California

Two rail accidents in California in 1991 changed the landscape of hazardous
response following a train derailment.
On July 14, 1991, a 97-car Southern Pacific train derailed on the Cantara Loop
Bridge in the upper Sacramento River gorge. In the process, more than 19,000
gallons of metam sodium, a pesticide used in farming, were released into the river.
Within three days, the pesticide cloud had reached Lake Shasta, where it formed a
plume 18 feet thick, one hundred yards wide, and three quarters of a mile long.
The spill killed over one million fish and sickened hundreds of residents and
cleanup workers.
The response effort involved more than 60 agencies; however, there was limited
expertise on how to deal with such an expansive spill.
Two weeks later, on July 28, 1991, a Southern Pacific train derailed in Seacliff,
California, releasing 440 gallons of aqueous hydrazine, a corrosive liquid
commonly used in jet fuel. The adjacent freeway was closed, and nearby residents
were evacuated. Emergency response crews worked for five days before the area
could be reopened to the public.
Legislative Response to 1991 Hazardous Materials Spills
Following the hazardous spills in Dunsmuir and Seacliff, six bills were introduced
that year in the California Legislature to improve rail safety and emergency
response. The bills that were signed by Governor Wilson:
1) Enacted a comprehensive system for identifying railroad sites that were local
safety hazards through the Safe Rail Transportation Act of 1991 (AB 151,
Chapter 763, Statutes of 1991);
2) Eliminated a fine exemption from railroads (AB 684, Chapter 764, Statutes
of 1991; and SB 152, Chapter 767, Statutes of 1991); and
3) Established a procedure for railroad safety and emergency planning and
response, and increased fines for oil and chemical spills (SB 48, Chapter
766, Statutes of 1991).
6

Rail Safety: CPUC

Under these provisions, the CPUC was required to annually report to the
Legislature on the type, quantities, and locations of hazardous materials
transported by railroads; however, this requirement was later removed from the
law following a challenge from the railroads. The CPUC continues to monitor
hazardous materials that enter California by rail, and CPUC rail safety inspectors
investigate accidents involving the actual or threatened release of hazardous
materials as reported by California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA).
Inspectors also conduct unannounced inspections at the facilities of shippers,
consignees, freight forwarders, intermodal transportation companies, and railroads.
Emergency Response: CPUC
The CPUC also established General Order 161 in 1991, which requires railroads to
notify the appropriate emergency response agency following any release or
threatened release of a hazardous material within 60 days. Railroads that transport
hazardous materials are also required to have an emergency preparedness plan
covering notification procedures, mitigation of a release, and training procedures
for railroad personnel.
Emergency Response: Railroad Accident Prevention and Immediate
Deployment (RAPID)
The Railroad Accident Prevention and Immediate Deployment (RAPID) Force was
established (SB 48, Chapter 766, Statutes of 1991) in order to provide immediate
onsite response capability in the event of a hazardous spill by rail. RAPID is
headed by CalEPA and consists of representatives from the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, CalEPA, California Air Resources Board, Cal Recycle, Regional
Water Quality Control Boards, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
Department of Pesticide Control, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, Department of Public Health, California Highway Patrol, Department
of Food and Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department
of Parks and Recreation, CPUC, Office of Emergency Services, and any other
potentially affected state, local, or federal agency.

Additionally, CalEPA was required to develop a state RAPID plan in cooperation

with the State Fire Marshal, affected businesses, and the RAPID force. A draft of
this report was prepared in April 1994. It states:
The mission of the RAPID Force is to provide immediate, onsite
technical assistance in an organized and predictable manner to state
and local agencies at surface transportation incidents involving a
large-scale release of hazardous materials, where the resources of
multiple state agencies are needed and/or where multiple state
agencies have statutory responsibilities in order to minimize the
potential damage to the public health and safety, environment, and
property.
A Rail Accident Prevention and Response Fund (RAPRF) and the Hazardous Spill
Prevention Account (HSPA) were established in order to pay for hazardous spill
response, training, and education. This fund relied on fees imposed on surface
transporters of hazardous materials.
The express statutory fee schedule for funding RAPID through the RAPRF and
HSPA ended on December 31, 1995, following a sunset provision in the law.
However, the mandate for the RAPID body, the RAPRF and the HSPA has not
been repealed. Currently, the RAPRF has $13,000 in the fund, and the HSPA has
$4,000 in the account.
Deployment of the RAPID Force
The RAPID Force was deployed several times between 1991 and 1995 in response
to chemical spills from trains. In addition, the RAPID program worked with
DTSC in the training of local emergency response personnel throughout the state.
Three illustrative examples of the use of the RAPID Force are discussed below.
General Chemical Release in Richmond
On July 26, 1993, a rail tanker containing concentrated sulfuric acid overheated
and exploded during an off-loading procedure. This released between four and
eight tons of the poisonous gas over a four-hour period, leading to the medical
8

treatment of over 20,000 people. The RAPID Force provided technical advice to
the incident commander at the release site, developed a health advisory for affected
residents, provided health assessment and toxicological assistance, and assisted in
community meetings.
Alameda Creek Spill, Alameda County
On January 30, 1994, RAPID team members responded to a request for assistance
from the City of Fremont where a rail car plunged off the track and fell into
Alameda Creek. The car contained a variety of hazardous materials, and upon
impact, burst into flames. The RAPID Force provided direct, onsite support to the
local response agency. This included assistance on sampling, analysis, cleanup
options and follow-up. Toxicological assistance was also provided to the incident
commander.
Smith River Spill, Del Norte County
On August 4, 1994, a truck dumped approximately 1,800 gallons of latex paint
onto a steep riverbank in the extreme northwest corner of California. The paint
quickly flowed into the Smith River, where it ultimately affected the ecological
health of the river. Although this was not a rail incident, RAPID Force members
were immediately sent to the scene to provide technical assistance for sampling the
soil and water, and remediating the spill.
Legal Challenges to Hazardous Spill Regulations
In order to implement the laws enacted in 1991, the CPUC issued D.97-09-045 in
September 1997. This declaration adopted safety regulations to eliminate or
reduce local safety hazards. The CPUC regulations were intended to complement
the Federal Railroad Administrations (FRA) efforts.
Following the issuance, the railroads challenged the CPUC decision and claimed
that the CPUC lacked the authority to require the railroads to comply with train
composition rules. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the
CPUC rules were preempted by federal law in several areas. In response, the
CPUC and the railroads reached a settlement (formalized in D.06-02-013) that
allowed the CPUC to enforce the railroads rules for train composition at the local
9

safety hazard sites and to require a scientifically based process for generating those
rules.

II. Railroad Risk Assessment

CPUC Risk Identification
In an attempt to mitigate potential accidents, the CPUC has identified areas of
increased risk of derailment. After the accidents at Dunsmuir and Seacliff, the
Legislature required the CPUC to identify sections of railroad track that posed
local safety hazards. The CPUC identified 19 track sections, listed in and depicted
below.

10

Local safety hazard sites identified by the CPUC, from its Annual Railroad Local Safety Hazard Report
for 2012. Published on July 1, 2013.

Local Safety Hazards as identified by the CPUC September, 1997

1) Site No. 1 - SP Coast Line, Milepost 235.0 to 249.0 (Now UPRR Coast Subdivision)
2) Site No. 3 SP Yuma Line, Milepost 535.0 to 545.0 (Now UPRR Yuma Subdivision)
3) Site No. 4 SP Yuma Line, Milepost 586.0 to 592.0 (Now UPRR Yuma Subdivision)
4) Site No. 6 - SP Yuma Line, Milepost 542.6 to 589.0
11

5) Site No. 7 SP Siskiyou Line, Milepost 393.1 to 403.2 (Now Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad
Siskiyou Subdivision)
6) Site No. 9 Shasta Line (Black Butte District), Milepost 322.1 to 332.6 (Now UPRR Black Butte
Subdivision)
7) Site No. 10 SP Shasta Line, Milepost 322.1 to 338.5 (Incorporated into Site No. 9 see above)
8) Site No. 12 SP Roseville District, Milepost 150.0 to 160.0 (Now UPRR Roseville Subdivision)
9) Site No 16 SP Bakersfield Line, Milepost 335.0 to 359.9 (Now UPRR Mojave Subdivision)
10) Site No. 19 SP Bakersfield Line, Milepost 463.0 to 486
11) Site No. 22 UP Feather River Division, Milepost 234.0 to 240.0 (Now UPRR Canyon Subdivision)
12) Site No. 23 UP Feather River Division, Milepost 253.0 to 282.0 (Now UPRR Canyon Subdivision)
13) Site No. 25 - UP Feather River Division, Milepost 232.1 to 319.2
14) Site No. 26 UP Bieber Line, Milepost 15.0 to 25.0 (Now BNSF Gateway Subdivision)
15) Site No. 27 UP L.A. Subdivision Cima Grade, Milepost 236.5 to 254.6
16) Site No. 28 ATSF Cajon, Milepost 53.0 to 68.0 (Now BNSF Cajon Subdivision)
17) Site No. 29 ATSF Cajon, Milepost 81.0 to 81.5 (Now BNSF Cajon Subdivision)
18) Site No. 30 ATSF Cajon, 55.9 to 81.5
19) Site No. 31 ATSF San Diego, Milepost 249.0 to 253.0 (Now BNSF San Diego Subdivision)

Many of the local safety hazard sites are located along the Sacramento and Feather
Rivers and Cajon and Tehachapi Passes. These local safety hazards are often
found in rural areas with challenging terrain that includes higher grades and tighter
track curves.
The CPUC reports that, from 2003-2013, the 2% of track identified as local safety
hazard sites were responsible for 18% of derailment accidents. The graph below
shows the number of California derailments reported to the Federal Railroad
Administration during that time period.

12

Federal Railroad Administration reportable derailments in California from 2003-2013.

In order to mitigate the risks associated with train derailments, the CPUC adopted
regulations that regulated the length and speed of trains, hours of allowable travel,
and special training protocols.
Additional Rail Risk Assessment Procedures
The Local Community Rail Security Act of 2006 (AB 3023, Chapter 867, Statutes
of 2006) requires that all rail operators provide a risk assessment to the CPUC, the
Director of Homeland Security, and CEMA that describes all of the following:
a) The location and functions of the rail facility.
b) All types of cargo, including hazardous cargo, that move through, or are
stored at, the rail facility.
c) The frequency that any hazardous cargo moves through, or is stored at, the
rail facility.
d) A description of the practices of the rail operators to prevent acts of
sabotage, terrorism, or other crimes at the rail facility.
e) All training programs that the rail operator requires for its employees at the
rail facility.
f) The emergency response procedures of the rail operator to deal with acts of
sabotage, terrorism, or other crimes at the rail facility.
13

g) The procedures of the rail operator to communicate with local and state law
enforcement personnel, emergency personnel, transportation officials, and
other first responders, in the event of acts of sabotage, terrorism, or other
crimes at the rail facility.
The Act also requires that by January 1, 2008, every rail operator shall develop and
implement an infrastructure protection program. Commission staff, in consultation
with the Governors Office of Homeland Security (OHS) and Office of Emergency
Services (OES) must review all infrastructure protection plans, and may conduct
inspections in order to evaluate railroads compliance with their own plans.
Representatives from the CPUC, OHS, and OES conduct the risk assessment and
infrastructure protection plan reviews in person at the railroad location where these
documents are normally stored. The review team also provides feedback to the
railroad representative on the risk assessment/protection plan sufficiency, and/or
areas for improvement.
III. Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail
Federal Law for Hazardous Material Transport
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
regulations under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51 covering hazardous materials
transportation and inspection of shipments by rail. The rules call for inspection of
hazardous shipments when they are accepted for transportation or placed in a train
in conjunction with other routine inspections. Additionally, states are free to
develop and enforce their own hazardous regulatory scheme as long as the
regulation is consistent with federal law.
Hazardous Materials Transport Nationwide and in California
Hazardous Waste Manifests and Labeling
While the United States Department of Transportation requires that shippers and
carriers of hazardous materials identify transported goods as such, there is no
requirement to make the information accessible to the public. Hazardous materials
14

shipped by vessel and rail are manifested, but the information is not collected in
any comprehensive way.
Labeling and placarding requirements of hazardous materials only cover
packaged/containerized shipments, like trucks and rail. Bulk shipments of
hazardous materials in ships and pipelines are not placarded and are more
specifically defined.
Though railroads reportedly keep records of hazardous materials they have
shipped, this information is considered proprietary. As a result, it is difficult to
track precisely how much hazardous material is being transported at a given time
or for a specific year.
Modes of Hazardous Waste Transport
According to PHMSA, in the United States, 40,315 groups registered as offerors
and transporters of hazardous materials (including wastes) between October 1,
2012 and September 30, 2013, for a total of $26,544,569 in registration fees.
(Small businesses and non-profits registered for $275 and larger companies
registered for $2,600).
The United States Department of Transportation estimated 2.2 billion tons of
hazardous materials were shipped nationwide in 2007 by all modes of transport,
including truck, rail, pipeline, water, and air.
Truck shipment accounted for 53.9% of these shipments by weight, while rail
(5.8%), water (6.7%), air (estimate not available), and pipeline (28.2%) accounted
for the remainder of single-mode shipments across the United States in 2007.
(Multiple modes accounted for about 5% of total tons shipped the same year.)
Based on 2007 data, each year about 130 million tons of hazardous materials are
shipped by rail, while about 150 million tons are shipped by vessel. In 2013, this
number included more than 15 million barrels of crude imported from Canada via
marine vessel, according to the California Energy Commission (CEC).
15

In 2011, according to the Surface Transportation Boards (STB) Waybill Sample (a

stratified sample of carload waybills for all rail traffic submitted by those rail
carriers terminating 4,500 or more revenue carloads annually) railroads transported
1.8 million carloads of hazardous materials, roughly half of which are in the
chemicals category.
Hazardous Chemicals by Rail
The federal government classifies a subset of hazardous materials as toxic
inhalation hazard (TIH) materials. These are gases or liquids, such as chlorine
and anhydrous ammonia, which are especially hazardous if released into the
atmosphere and require additional handling and monitoring procedures. In 2011,
railroads carried 77,500 TIH carloads. Hazardous materials accounted for 6% of
rail carloads in 2011. TIH materials accounted for 0.3%.
According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the highest-volume
chemical carried by United States railroads is ethanol. Over half of all rail
chemical tonnage (more than 81 million tons in 2012) consists of various industrial
chemicals, including potassium chloride, sodium carbonate (soda ash), sodium
hydroxide (caustic soda), sulfuric acid, urea, and anhydrous ammonia. Plastic
materials and synthetic resinsincluding polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl
chloride, and similar productsaccount for around 25% of rail chemical tonnage.
Most of the rest consists of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals. (Note that
not all chemicals shipped by rail are classified as hazardous.)
Hazardous Chemicals by Rail: Crude Oil and Ethanol
The production of two types of hazardous materials, crude oil and ethanol, has seen
rapid growth in the past few years. This increasing production has required a
flexible mode of transport to match output, and has begun to increasingly rely on
rail transport. In fact, railroads account for about 70% of all ethanol transport,
according to the AAR, and crude oil by rail is growing quickly as pipelines become
saturated and do not connect new oil boom regions (such as the Bakken in North
Dakota and the Tar Sands in Canada) to major refining locations (such as
California). Rail is especially important when primary markets for products are far
from their sources, as is the case for both commodities.
16

Increasing production and transport by rail of both crude oil and ethanol.

In 2011, California had the third highest amount of imported rail tons of ethanol in
the country, with more than 45,000 carloads arriving in state. The same year, about
9,000 tank cars of crude oil were imported into California by rail, and this number
is projected to increase to over 200,000 cars by rail by 2016, according to the CEC.

17

Rail ethanol transport origins and terminations by state. Most ethanol originates in the Midwest, and
California receives the third highest number of ethanol carloads in the country.

Incidents with Hazardous Materials Releases

Short of having a comprehensive, publically available database of all hazardous
materials shipped in the United States, the PHMSA Incident Database gives a
perspective on the impact of shipped hazardous goods within California
boundaries. In 1993, the United States Department of Transportations Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), within the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) created the definition of a serious incident to better convey
consequences of hazardous materials transportation. The definition resulted from a
need to distinguish between those incidents that have the potential to result in
significant consequences from the growing number of relatively minor incidents
(such as a half-gallon spill from a paint can on a rail yard).
Serious incidents are currently defined as incidents that involve:
A fatality or major injury caused by the release of hazardous material.
The evacuation of 25 or more employees or responders or any number of the
general public as a result of hazardous materials release or exposure to a fire.
A release or exposure to fire which results in the closure of a major
transportation artery.
The alteration of an aircraft flight plan or operation.
18

The release of radioactive materials from Type B packaging.

The suspected release of a Risk Group 3 or 4 infectious substance.
The release of over 11.9 gallons or 88.2 pounds of a severe marine pollutant.
The release of a bulk quantity (over 119 gallons or 882 pounds) of a
hazardous material.

Hazardous Waste Spills Since 1990: Solids

A total of over 403,000 pounds of solid hazardous materials were spilled from rails
since 1990. These included the following hazardous classes: oxidizer (mostly
ammonium nitrate fertilizers); corrosive materials (two incidences of copper
chloride); and flammable solids (magnesium or magnesium alloys).

Relative amounts of solid hazardous materials released in serious incidents on California Rails from 1990
through 2013. The most commonly released solid hazardous material was fertilizer. The flammable
solids class was involved in only 1 recorded serious incident.

Hazardous Waste Spills Since 1990: Liquids

Far more serious incidents involving liquid hazardous materials were recorded for
the same time period in California. Six of the nine hazardous classifications were
represented in these incidents: corrosive liquids, flammable and combustible
19

liquids, nonflammable and flammable compressed gases, oxidizers, poisonous

materials, and miscellaneous materials. The largest grouping, flammable and
combustible liquids, included non-specified combustible liquids, non-specified
alcohols and petroleum products, as well as a few single incidents of other liquids.
The next category, corrosive materials, was often hydrochloric, phosphoric, or
sulfuric acid, though other corrosives were spilled over the time period as well.
Flammable gases were liquid petroleum gases, while nonflammable gases tended
to be argon or carbon dioxide refrigerated liquids.

Relative amounts of liquid hazardous materials released in serious incidents on California Rails from
1990 through 2013. The most commonly released liquids tended to be non-specified
flammable/combustible liquids and corrosive acids.

Liquid spills since 1990 occurred most often in the central and southern portions of
the state, particularly in the Los Angeles area. Nine incidents occurred in Los
Angeles itself, involving corrosive and flammable liquids.

20

Geographic distribution of rail incidents involving hazardous liquids since 1990. Bold grey lines mark
primary railroad tracks. Size of red circles indicates relative number of incidents, with the smallest circle
representing one incident and the largest representing 11. Southern California is inset to show detail.
Please note: most serious incidents reported are unique incidents; however, in some cases each car in a
derailment is listed as a separate incidence. This was the case in a Fremont, CA derailment of nine cars in
a single accident; therefore Fremont is overrepresented in this map.

Over the span from 1990 through 2013, the predominant class of spills has shifted
from combustible liquids (non-specified) and nonflammable compressed gases in
the 1990s to corrosive materials and flammable liquids.

21

Liquid Hazardous Materials Spills on California Rails since 1990 (liquid gallons). Note that the well-known Cantara Loop derailment, which spilled 19,000 gallons
of metam sodium into the Sacramento River, is not shown on this chart; metam sodium was not classified as a hazardous material at the time and was therefore not
reported as an incident involving hazardous materials. The largest spill of flammable gas was 5 gallons and is not easily visible in the chart.

22

IV. Crude Oil Background, Spills and Response

Oil Tanker Spills and Legislative Response: 1989-1991
Two major crude oil spills from tankers influenced state law for emergency
response following marine oil spills: the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska on March 24,
1989, and the American Trader spill near Huntington Beach on February 7, 1990.
As a result, the Legislature passed the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill
Prevention and Response Act in 1990. This Act covers all aspects of marine oil
spill prevention and response in California. The Act established an Administrator
to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup
efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in marine waters of the state. In
1991 the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) opened, headed by the
Administrator.
Oil Spill Prevention and Response Program
The Brown Administration has proposed significant changes to the existing oil
spill prevention and response program through the FY 2014-15 Budget to address
the expected increase of crude oil transport by rail. The proposed Department of
Fish and Wildlife Budget Change Proposal (BCP) expands the current oil spill
prevention and response program focused on marine waters inland to include all
waters of the state. According to the Department, about half of all inland spills are
oil spills. Given the proximity of rail lines to Californias waterways, the risk of
contamination following a rail accident is high. The Administrations proposal
would require the implementation of a statewide inland oil spill program
encompassing oil-related facilities and oil transporters.
The proposal would extend to inland waters features of the current marine oil spill
program including:
Development and testing of inland oil spill contingency plans,
Certifications of financial assurance to fund cleanup in the event of an oil
spill,
Use of the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund to pay for response,
Penalties for spills, and
Oiled Wildlife Care Network (OWCN) response in the event of a spill.
23

The BCP also adds members to the Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee to
reflect inland interests. To implement and fund the new inland program, OSPR
would add 38 positions with an ongoing appropriation of $6.2 million annually.
Revenue for the program is provided by removing the January 1, 2015, sunset date
on the 6.5 cap on the per barrel fee for oil delivered at marine terminals and
extending the fee to include all crude oil delivered to refineries in California by
any transportation method. The fees are deposited in the Oil Spill Prevention and
Administration Fund. The per barrel fee change is expected to address an ongoing
structural deficit in this fund, despite the BCP also shifting support for the OWCN
to this fund and increasing it to $2.5 million. The planned changes require
legislative action and extensive budgetary trailer bill language accompanies the
BCP. The Legislative Analysts Office has recommended support for the proposal,
although it recommends that a risk-based fee, if feasible, be implemented that
covers the cost of the entire oil spill program and that the requested positions be
funded for one-half year only.
Crude Oil Rail Accidents
Train accidents involving large crude oil spills resulting in large fires and
explosions have made headlines in the past year. According to data from PHMSA,
the amount of crude oil spilled from rail cars in 2013 exceeded that spilled in the
preceding four decades. In 2013, 1.15 million gallons of crude oil were spilled,
compared with about 800,000 gallons spilled from rail cars between 1975 and
2012.
One of the most serious of these recent accidents was the Lac-Mgantic derailment
that occurred in the town of Lac-Mgantic in Canada on July 6, 2013. In this
accident, a 74-car freight train carrying crude oil from the Bakken formation
derailed in the downtown area, killing 47 people and destroying more than 30
buildings when multiple tank cars exploded and burned. In addition, the Chaudire
River was contaminated by 26,000 gallons of crude oil.
A number of other accidents occurred in the last six months:
On October 19, 2013, nine tank cars of propane and four tank cars of crude
oil from Canada derailed as the train was traveling at 22 miles an hour.
24

While three of the propane tank cars ignited, the crude tank cars were not
punctured. There were no injuries, but about 100 residents were evacuated.
On November 8, 2013, a train carrying 90 cars of crude oil from North
Dakota to a refinery at the Gulf Coast derailed in Aliceville, Alabama.
Thirty tank cars left the tracks and about a dozen of these burned. There
were no injuries or fatalities.
On December 30, 2013, a train hauling 106 cars of crude oil collided with a
grain train in Casselton, North Dakota. Between the trains, 34 cars derailed,
including 20 carrying crude oil, which exploded and burned for over 24
hours. No injuries were reported, but over 1,400 residents were evacuated.
On January 7, 2014, a mixed train carrying crude oil, propane, and other
materials derailed in Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, with 17 cars from the
track. Five of these cars carrying crude oil caught fire and exploded. About
45 homes were evacuated.
On January 20, 2014, a 101-car train including five cars carrying crude oil
derailed on a bridge over the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
No leakage was reported in this accident.
On February 13, 2014, another train carrying crude oil from Canada derailed
in Vandergrift, Pennsylvania, at a bend by the Kiskiminetas River. Of the
120 cars hauled by the train, 21 left the tracks and 19 of these carried oil.
Four tank cars spilled between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons of oil.
Properties of Crude Oil
All crude oil is not the same. Depending upon the source of the oil, it may have
widely varying chemical and physical properties prior to refining. For example,
crude may exhibit a range of viscosities (flow freely (high) or not (low)), densities,
volatile hydrocarbon fractions, impurities, and flammabilities. A very light crude
may float on water, evaporate quickly and ignite in the presence of a lighted match.
A very heavy crude such as the bitumen produced from tar sands may have the
25

consistency of thick mud, smell like rotten eggs, not burn readily, and sink through
water. The sour smell is from an impurity, hydrogen sulfide, in the crude oil;
high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be corrosive. While hydrogen sulfide
is naturally occurring, other impurities may be introduced into the crude oil by the
production process. Regardless of the source, impurities affect the composition of
the crude oil and may correspondingly affect the volatility, toxicity, corrosivity,
and chemical reactivity of the crude oil.
The risks to health, safety and the environment for a crude oil spill are driven by
the specific properties of the crude oil. Therefore, federal law and regulation
requires that all hazardous materials be properly labeled to ensure appropriate and
safe handling, transport and emergency response, if needed.
Bakken Crude Oil Properties
Recent rail accidents where derailments led to explosions and extensive fires
suggest that Bakken crude oil may have different properties than what is typically
assumed for crude oil. Tests of the Bakken crude that exploded in the LacMgantic derailment showed that it has a lower flashpoint and is thus much more
flammable than most crudes. Its viscosity is also very close to that of unleaded
gasoline so it would flow readily when spilled. There is speculation that Bakken
crude is also more corrosive, which could result in thinning and failure of tank car
walls.
Bakken Crude Oil Federal Response
PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Association (FRA) joined to initiate Operation
Classification, also known as the Bakken Blitz, to test samples and verify
correct labeling of crude oil coming from the Bakken formation. Spot checks to
obtain crude oil samples and subsequent testing of the sampled oil began in the
summer of 2013. Recently announced preliminary results show 11 of 18 crude oil
samples were incorrectly classified as being less flammable than they actually
were, and the program is being expanded. Due to the inquiry, three companies
have been issued Notices of Proposed Violations totaling $93,000.

26

On February 25, 2014, the United States Department of Transportation issued an

Emergency Order requiring all shippers to test product from the Bakken region to
ensure the proper classification of crude oil before it is transported by rail. This
information should assist in emergency response procedures should a spill occur in
California and assuming the proper documentation of such testing is provided.

27

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo (https://www.governor.ny.gov)

Directing DEC, DOT, DHSES, DOH, and NYSERDA to Strengthen the States Oversight of Shipments of Petroleum Products
Directing The Department of Environmental Conservation, The Department of Transportation, The Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Services, The Department of Health, and The New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority to Take Action to Strengthen the States Oversight of Shipments of Petroleum
Products
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2013, a train derailment in Lac-Mgantic, Qubec involving tank cars carrying crude oil caused the
devastation of an entire community, the deaths of 47 persons, and the evacuation of thousands; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2013, a train derailment in Casselton, North Dakota caused 18 tank cars carrying crude oil
to be punctured, spilling more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil into the environment, and causing a fire which resulted in
the evacuation of more than one thousand Casselton residents; and
WHEREAS, rail cars transporting crude oil traverse 1,000 miles of New York States 3,500-mile freight rail network, from
Western New York along the Mohawk River and its communities to the Port of Albany, and from Canada across the
border at Rouses Point along Lake Champlain and through communities to the Port of Albany, where it is then
transported south by rail, ship, and barge on or along the Hudson River and along or through New York communities to
refineries in mid-Atlantic states; and
WHEREAS, much of the increase in the volume of crude oil transported is due to increased production from the Bakken
formation in North Dakota, Montana, and Canada, which, due to lack of pipeline capacity, must be transported by rail; and
WHEREAS, historically, rail transport of crude oil is safer and more environmentally protective than truck transport; and
WHEREAS, there has been a significant expansion in the use of the Port of Albany in the distribution and transportation of
crude oil and other petroleum products by rail, ship, and barge for shipment on and along the Hudson River and along or
through our communities to out-of-state refineries and storage facilities; and
WHEREAS, the increase in frequency and numbers of rail cars, ships, and barges carrying crude oil and other petroleum
products through hundreds of New York communities increases the publics vulnerability to a serious accident; and
WHEREAS, New Yorks waterways, including the Hudson River, Mohawk River, and Lake Champlain, on or along which
rail cars, ships, and barges travel, are unique ecological, cultural, economic, natural, and recreational resources upon
which millions of New Yorkers rely, which makes these waterways especially vulnerable to spills of crude oil and other
petroleum products; and
WHEREAS, Bakken crude oil has a lower flashpoint and is therefore more prone to ignite during a rail accident; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is in the process of designating new safety standards and
requirements for rail tank cars and evaluating potential new rules for the transportation of flammable liquids; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the value of these efforts, New York nevertheless cannot await the final outcome of these federal
assessments before taking action; and
WHEREAS, New York is preempted by federal law from regulating rail freight transportation and rail car safety standards,
and the navigation of vessels operating on the States navigable waterways; and

WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has jurisdiction over air permitting, oil
spill response, and storage of petroleum products in bulk tanks; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) has jurisdiction to inspect freight rail track and
equipment; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES) provides assistance
and support to local entities relating to emergency planning, training, and response to incidents, including petroleum spills
and fires; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Health (DOH) assesses and monitors the human exposure and public
health impact of petroleum spills and fires, advises on the safe handling of hazardous materials and the cleanup of such
materials, and provides public information on health impacts and protective measures; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) acts as a central
clearinghouse for energy resource information, monitors and regularly reports on liquid fuel supply and market trends, and
maintains data on major liquid fuel storage terminals;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by
the Constitution and the Laws of the State of New York, do hereby direct that:
1. DEC, DHSES, DOT, and DOH shall promptly petition USDOT, the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to upgrade tanker car and rail
line safety, assess federal agency needs and risks, and pre-deploy appropriate spill response equipment and
resources to protect New York States communities, residents, land, and waterways from accidents involving the
transportation of crude oil and other petroleum products by rail, ship, and barge; and
2. DEC and DHSES, working with DOT, DOH, and NYSERDA, shall, in consultation with USDOT, USDOE, USCG,
and USDHS, conduct an assessment of the States spill prevention and response rules and inspection programs
governing the transportation of crude oil and other petroleum products by rail, ship, and barge; and
3. On or about April 30, 2014, DEC and DHSES, with DOT, DOH, and NYSERDA, shall submit to me a consolidated
report summarizing the States existing capacity to prevent and respond to accidents involving the transportation
of crude oil and other petroleum products by rail, ship, and barge; and
4. This consolidated report shall include but shall not be limited to: (i) a summary of the States readiness to prevent
and respond to rail and water accidents involving petroleum products; (ii) recommendations concerning statutory,
regulatory, or administrative changes needed at the State level to better prevent and respond to accidents
involving the transportation of crude oil and other petroleum products by rail, ship, and barge; (iii)
recommendations concerning the role that local governments across the State have in protecting their
communities and their residents from spills of petroleum products shipped by rail and water; and (iv)
recommendations concerning enhanced coordination between the State and federal agencies in order to improve
the States capacity to prevent and respond to accidents involving the transportation of crude oil and other
petroleum products by rail, ship, and barge.
G I V E N under my hand and the Privy Seal of the
State in the City of Albany this twentyeighth day of January in the year two
thousand fourteen.

RESOLUTION NO. 66,516-N.S.

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ALONG
CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS,
THROUGH THE EAST BAY, AND BERKELEY
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from the Dakotas; and
WHEREAS existing rail terminals are securing permits to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude
oils without any public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 57 percent during
2013 and this growth will continue to skyrocket if the proposed rail terminals are permitted and
constructed: and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS tar sands crude or bitumen is known to be an extremely viscous form of petroleum that will
not flow unless heated or diluted with other lighter hydrocarbons that include toxic substances, and is
known to be extremely difficult to clean up when spills occur especially in aquatic ecosystems; and
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail, accompanied by a
similar rise in spectacular accidents, nearly 100 in 2013; more crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents
in 2013 than in the preceding four decades, more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013; and
WHEREAS in July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable Bakken crude oil
derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47
people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS in July 2010, a tar sands oil pipeline burst and caused more than 1 million gallons of tar
sands crude to flow into Michigans Kalamazoo River, much of which sank to the river bottom and still
remains today after $1 billion in clean-up efforts; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure of shippers to appropriately classify the contents of
crude oil to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail,
in particular Bakken crude, and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of
life, property and environmental damage; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board, as a result of recent catastrophic crude oil rail
accidents, made recommendations to federal agencies to improve rail safety regulations for the transport
of crude oil, including requirements for comprehensive worst-case scenario emergency response plans
and requirements for testing and documenting the physical and chemical characteristics of hazardous
materials being offered for shipment by rail; and

Office of Councilmember Linda Maio, Vice Mayor of the City of Berkeley

510.981.7110 | lmaio@cityofberkeley.info | cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio

WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by
rail to the State of New York and its citizens by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state
agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness; and
WHEREAS Albany County, New York, recognizing the hazards associated with the rapid increase in
crude by rail shipments, issued a moratorium on increases at the Port of Albany, pending a public health
investigation; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from crude oil as well as other fossil fuels such as coal and
petcoke will lead to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to
particulate matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in
adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased
severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes adjacent to densely
populated areas and the San Francisco Bay Estuary and its tributaries, posing a serious threat to this
ecosystem which is considered a biodiversity hotspot, sustaining significant aquatic and estuarine species
and habitat, and is a treasured icon for millions of Bay Area residents; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes adjacent to the
Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, posing a serious threat to the water supply for
most of California; and
WHEREAS hauling crude into California involves traversing some of the most challenging mountain
passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel and timber
bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS a crude-by-rail project, the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery rail spur extension, is currently
before San Luis Obispo County for approval, and trains delivering crude for this project would use Union
Pacific rail tracks, which follow the Amtrak Capitol Corridor route through the East Bay and Berkeley; and
WHEREAS other refineries and existing rail terminals have similar projects planned to transport
hazardous crude oil, coal, and petcoke by rail through our cities; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac Mgantic or
a derailment and spill could have catastrophic effects to any populated area.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council opposes using existing Union Pacific rail
lines to transport hazardous crude along California waterways, through densely populated areas, through
the East Bay and Berkeley, and resolves to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air
permits or zoning changes for transport of crude as they occur;

File comments as quickly as possible on the Santa Maria project, which is the first that proposes to
bring crude through the Bay Area;

File comments on the DEIR for the Valero crude-by-rail project (Benecia) within the formal
comment period when it is released in March;
Office of Councilmember Linda Maio, Vice Mayor of the City of Berkeley
510.981.7110 | lmaio@cityofberkeley.info | cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio


Send a letter to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors expressing opposition to the proposed
Phillips 66 Rodeo facility expansion, which is directly linked to the Santa Maria rail terminal by pipeline
and all crude rail terminal expansions proposed at the Countys other refineries, and send letters to other
city and county boards expressing opposition to other proposed crude by rail terminal facilities;

Write and submit comments to the U.S. Department of Transportations anticipated federal rail
safety rulemaking regulating the shipment of crude by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District requesting public notice and CEQA
review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail terminals, including change of
use decisions, such as the recent substitution of Bakken crude for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder
Morgan Terminal without any public notification or CEQA review;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Andrew Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil;

Commit to fighting crude oil transport through Berkeley and the East Bay utilizing Berkeleys legal
staff, working with Berkeley stakeholders and other groups, including filing amicus briefs in support of
neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused
by the transport of crude oil through Berkeley by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety,
building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes; engaging in state and federal regulatory processes; and by
actively enforcing applicable federal environmental statutes delegated to Berkeley;

Request that railroads involved in crude oil and other fossil fuel transport proposals make public
any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases and that the railroad
provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen groups and local government officials from
Berkeley to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with Berkeley to account for the
transport of crude oil and other fossil fuels ;

Through the California Public Utility Commission, assure the CPUC railroad safety program is
adequately implemented in Berkeley and other areas that may receive crude by rail shipments, including
detection and mitigation of risks;

Require the railroad to draft road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise providing
crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and require the railroad to pay in
full for these upgrades;

Alert and communicate our opposition to other cities along the transportation route, support their
efforts, and build a coalition;

Work through the California League of Cities and California League of Counties to articulate
opposition;

Alert Alameda County and our State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento, and
enlist their help;

Lobby our U. S. Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.
Office of Councilmember Linda Maio, Vice Mayor of the City of Berkeley
510.981.7110 | lmaio@cityofberkeley.info | cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio

FILED
f f l C t OF THE CITY t l t U
OAKLAND

U HAY 29 PH 1^:52
AttomeyTofflce

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO.

054

C.M.S.

I N T R O D U C E D B Y C O U N C I L M E M B E R S Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND
PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke ("petcoke")a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed. Assembly
Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to enact
legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and
other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern

1383417

about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents' concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide - the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Megantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a "pernicious ballast foulant" that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans;
and
WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate

-2-

I Ji(iii,wip;Hiij|Pij^jj^,i.^,/7?T

matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals - including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc - at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to California's agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major watenA/ays, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oakland's
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oakland's history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Megantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California waten^/ays, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

-3-

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Consider submitting comments in opposition to CEQA documents and any draft permit
approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include a region-wide
cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to fully account for the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil
transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. whereby the City
Council of Oakland requests that he take executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomo's executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of
volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington
Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urges that the BAAQMD require public
notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil
fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMD's issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to rail carriers involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and petcoke in
California requesting:
0
that the rail carriers make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases;
0
that the rail carriers provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to
address local concerns;
o
that the rail carriers update its emergency response plan with the City of Oakland
to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;
0
that the rail carriers conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and
0
that the rail carriers implement measures to reduce community impacts including,
but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or othenA/ise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to

-4-

prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay in full for
these upgrades in Oakland; and

Submit a copy of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
whereby the City Council of Oakland seeks assurances that the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive crude
by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
CPUC;

Send a copy of this Resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist
their help; and

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

JUN 17 2014

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN - 3
.

NOESABSENT-S)
ABSTENTION -(^^
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No. ____________________C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER KALB

RESOLUTION OF THE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING A

CITY POLICY PROHIBITING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS OR
HOLDING ANY INVESTMENT OR OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ANY
COMPANIES THAT EXTRACT, PRODUCE, REFINE, BURN OR
DISTRIBUTE FOSSIL FUELS, AND (2) DIRECTING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE TO EXAMINE THE CITYS
HOLDINGS AND FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ASSURE THAT THE
CITY COMPLIES WITH THIS POLICY, AND (3) URGING THE
GOVERNING
BOARDS
OF
THE
OAKLAND
MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (OMERS), THE OAKLAND
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PFRS) AND THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(CALPERS) TO DIVEST FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL
FUEL COMPANIES, AND
(4) URGING OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT INTERSECT WITH OAKLAND TO DIVEST
FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, ALL IN
AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE OAKLAND
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND DIMINISH THE USE OF
FOSSIL FUELS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE
WHEREAS, the climate crisis is a severe threat to current and future generations here
in Oakland and around the world; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report i found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of
human and natural systems throughout the world including the melting of Arctic ice, the
oceans rise, increase in oceans acidity, flooding and drought, and the IPCC Fifth
Assessment reports further indicate that global warming is proceeding at a faster pace
than had been previously thought; and
WHEREAS, these extreme events have and will continue to negatively impact the U.S.
economy. In 2012, the United States accounted for 67% of the $160 billion lost globally
due to natural catastrophes ii; and
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed through the 2009
Copenhagen Accord that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise would be hazardous,

1394666.2

and that if humans release only about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere this limit will be not possible to maintain; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this resolution, a fossil fuel company shall be defined
as any publicly-traded company that extracts, produces, refines, burns or distributes any
fossil fuels and any company with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured
by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted
and burned, 200 largest of which are listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiatives
Unburnable Carbon report iii; and
WHEREAS, in its Unburnable Carbon report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that
fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release
approximately 2,795 gigatons of CO2 if they are burned, which is five times the amount
that can be released without exceeding 2C of warming; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere Earths climate
is changing drastically and the Arctic snowcap and Antarctic glaciers are melting much
faster than previously estimated and climate change is occurring much faster and likely
to affect each human being presently living on the Planet, iv and
WHEREAS, the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan found that combustion of
fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
Oakland, as well as throughout California and projected local impacts of climate change
caused by GHG emissions include rising Bay and delta waters, increased vulnerability
to flood events, decreased potable water supply due to shrinking Sierra snowpack,
increased fire danger, more extreme heat events and public health impacts, added
stress on infrastructure, higher prices for food and fuels, and other ecological and
quality of life impacts; and current dependence on fossil fuels not only creates heattrapping GHG emissions, but imposes other risks associate with energy security,
environmental impacts (e.g., recent Gulf oil spill), and vulnerability to energy price
volatility, and v
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has no current investments, other than possible
inadvertent de minimus amounts, in fossil fuel companies and has a history of
successfully prohibiting investments in entities that produce outcomes that are harmful
to civilizationsOakland successfully divested from South Africa in 1985 and Burma in
1996 to make a stand against human rights abuses; and companies involved in
Tobacco, Nuclear, and Firearms and Ammunition production to make a stand for the
health and wellbeing of the residents of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Oakland believe that investments should support a future
where all people can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming
climate; and,
WHEREAS, at least twenty-one cities in the United States have committed to freeze
fossil fuel investment and more than two hundred colleges and universities in the United

1394666.2

States have launched campaigns to have their institutions divest from fossil fuel
companies; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby declares that it is the policy of the City of
Oakland to have no financial holdings or investments, other than an inadvertent de
minimus amount defined as less than one percent in any given investment instrument,
in any Fossil Fuel Company, as defined, but not limited to above, (that extracts,
produces, refines, burns or distributes fossil fuels, and any company with the largest
coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be
emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned), be it through the direct purchase
of commercial paper, a medium term note (corporate bond), ownership of stock,
ownership of mutual funds shares, investment in a private equity fund owning the stock,
or through any other instrument, securities, or other financial obligations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall, to the
extent practicable, examine the Citys financial holdings and future investments to
assure that the City complies with this City policy by no later than July, 2015 and
periodically beyond; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That if a money market fund has security holdings at or
exceeding 1% in fossil fuel companies, the City will begin to divest out of that money
market fund and be fully divested within one year; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accord with Charter Section 504, the City
Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain compliance with this policy, by
effective methods such as monitoring the financial security holdings of the Citys money
market funds and periodic review of the list of publicly-traded companies that extracts,
produces, refines, burns or distributes fossil fuels and companies with the largest coal,
oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be
emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, as listed in the Carbon Tracker
Initiatives Unburnable Carbon report; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall provide
the Council periodic updates, available to the public, detailing progress made towards
compliance with full divestment; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City urges the governing boards of the Oakland
Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS) to adopt a similar policy and to divest from fossil fuel companies; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City of Oakland urges other local jurisdictions that
geographically intersect with Oakland to divest from and prohibit future investment of
their respective public funds in fossil fuel companies; and be it

1394666.2

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall
prepare a report to the Council by no later than July, 2015 that outlines options for
investing City funds in a socially responsible manner that further maximizes the positive
impact of public funds by seeking out investment opportunities that limit and help to
mitigate effects of burning fossil fuels, including, but not limited to, clean technology,
renewable energy, sustainable companies or projects, and sustainable communities,
etc.; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is directed to forward a copy of this
enacted Resolution to the governing boards of OMERS, PFRS and the CalPERS, and
to the elected governing boards of special district jurisdictions vi that intersect with
Oakland, and to state legislative elected officials representing Oakland.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report Impact Forecasting 2012
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20130124_if_annual_global_climate_catastrophe_rep
ort.pdf
iii http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Fullrev2.pdf, Page 13
i

ii

iv

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp;
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html
v http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak039056.pdf; Page 4, 23
and 58
vi

AC Transit, BART, East Bay MUD, East Bay Regional Parks District, Peralta Community Colleges.

1394666.2

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:14 PM
To: 'taylorsmiley5@gmail.com'
Subject:
1394666_2 (2)
Attachments: 1394666_2 (2).docx
9:30 Finance Committee meeting June 10th

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A LABOR

FRIENDLY COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
PROPOSAL FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY
WHEREAS, electric utilities have long been a source of unionized workers for working
Californians: Union members are directly employed by the utilities, union members
work for the contractors hired by utilities, and third party energy generators whose
electricity is purchased by utilities sign project labor agreements to build their generation
facilities; and
WHEREAS, in 2002, the California Legislature passed and Governor Gray Davis signed
AB 117 creating the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) concept which permits the
procurement of electricity by local governments for its residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, CCA agencies face a significant risk that consultants and venture
capitalists will manipulate the newly established CCA agency for their own financial
benefit and against the interest of workers and consumers; and
WHEREAS, the Marin CCA actually contracted to purchase power from Shell Energy
North America, a subsidiary of Shell Oil and an energy trading company, headquartered
in Houston, TX. (Think ENRON) Shell is an anti-worker company that makes its money
buying and selling electricity and seeks high profit margins by purchasing low cost, nonunion power from out of state; and
WHEREAS, despite repeated promises of local jobs and local build-out of renewable
energy generation facilities, in the four years the Marin CCA has been purchasing Shell
power, only one local renewable energy facility had been built in Marin and that facility
was built non-union; and
WHEREAS, California law requires Utilities and CCAs to increase renewable generated
electricity to constitute 33% of their portfolio by 2020. Consequently, every customer in
California will receive the same amount of renewable energy from State certified
renewable sources, whether they are served by existing Utilities or a new CCA; and
WHEREAS, the high demand for renewable energy is creating opportunities for work in
the development of new renewable energy generation through the building of renewable
energy generation facilities in California and labor is united in providing as much of this
work to union members as is possible: and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Board of Supervisors has approved a feasibility study to
determine the viability of launching a CCA to meet the increased interest for renewable
energy in the county; and

WHEREAS, aggregation of energy customers will produce the good, green jobs desired
ONLY IF specific elements are established in writing and the Alameda CCA agrees in
advance to these objectives. Without each one of these elements, no good, green jobs
will be created.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda Labor Council

hereby formally urges Alameda Board of Supervisors and those entities participating in
the development of an Alameda County CCA to adopt the following principles to ensure
that the project will create fair wage, union jobs with benefits fulfilling a major goal of the
green economy in the Bay Area:
Principles for Implementation of Labor Friendly Community Choice Aggregation
In order to ensure the greatest opportunity for workers to benefit from local electric
customers investment in a Community Choice Aggregation agency and protect the
interests of union members, the Alameda Labor Council has determined that the
following Principles must be established in writing PRIOR to Labor providing any
support for a proposed Alameda CCA. This includes identifying funding or likely funding
sources required to successfully implement the CCA in advance.
1. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) from union generating companies/agencies:
The power procured by the CCA must be sourced from generators who employ union
workers. Such generators should also be located in State. Today, dozens of utilities in
California generate and purchase electricity generated here and California generates
nearly 80% of all the electricity that it uses. This increases the buying power of the
customers while using the Utilities infrastructure and power generated and delivered by
union workers.
2. PLAs Covering Renewable Energy Generation:
The CCA shall purchase renewable power from generating plants that have been built
under a Project Labor Agreement or from plants that will be built under the CURE
model. Currently, this is universal in California, where Utilities who generate and
purchase green power do so from generating facilities that have been built under a
CURE PLA. But funding for these new renewable generation projects must be in place
before Alameda County launches its CCA because no funding means no construction
and no work. Instead, the new CCA will contract for out of state power and use
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to greenwash dirty, fossil fuel power.
3. PLAs Covering Energy Efficiency Work:
The Alameda CCA shall agree upfront to perform necessary energy efficient work on
their customers' building under a Building Trades PLA. This work must create sufficient
energy savings to pay for these improvements and the energy efficiency work must be

performed under a Project Labor Agreement. A wide variety of financing strategies are
available from Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) to Property Assessed Clean
Energy (PACE). The work is performed by trained union workers ensuring high wage
and benefits to the workforce; and
4. Community Benefits Agreements.
CCA projects that have community benefits provisions requiring local construction and
local hiring should have priority over projects without such commitments.
The Alameda CCA shall agree upfront to Community Benefit Agreements with
provisions requiring local construction and local hiring have priority over projects without
such commitments prioritize projects to assure workers residing in Alameda County will
benefit from the CCA: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon adoption of these principles by Alameda
Board of Supervisors, including identified financing for local renewable generation
development in Alameda County and throughout the State of California, the Alameda
Labor Council will support fully the implementation of the Alameda CCA; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, all
participating Cities and other entities should also endorse the principles for CCA
creation to ensure that the jobs created will be the good, green jobs long promised by
the green economy.

Adopted by the Alameda Labor Council Executive Committee 07/11/14 & Delegates 07/14/14
Respectfully,

Josie Camacho
Executive Secretary-Treasurer

ALASKA

CALIFORNIA

NORTHWEST

FLORIDA

MID -PACIFIC

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

NORTHEAST

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NORTHERN ROCKIES
INTERNATI ONAL

June 2, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Peter Lee, Project Manager
Bay Area Toll Authority
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Email: plee@mtc.ca.gov
Re:

Comments Related to the Environmental Review of Gateway Park and

Redevelopment of the former Oakland Army Base (SCH # 2013112003)

Dear Mr. Lee:

I.

INTRODUCTION

I am writing on behalf of Sierra Club, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project,

and Communities for a Better Environment to ensure that the environmental review of the Bay
Area Toll Authoritys (BATA) Gateway Park proposal complies with the basic mandates of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Members of these groups live, work and recreate in and around the project area.
Developing Gateway Park without conducting a comprehensive study of the projects
environmental effects or taking account of new information about the project will jeopardize the
health and quality of life of these members.
During the scoping process for BATAs Gateway Park project, these groups commented
on the need for BATAs environmental review to consider the serious environmental and health
effects of a proposed coal export terminal at the Oakland Army Base.1 New information now
indicates that the State of Utah has pledged funds to construction of a bulk marine terminal at the
former base, in exchange for the dedicated use of the terminal for coal exports. As these groups
have already noted, the effects of using the OAB for coal exports have never been studied or
disclosed to the public, and BATAs environmental review must consider the effects that
building and operating a coal export terminal will have on the surrounding community. This
letter builds on and supplements these groups earlier letter regarding BATAs environmental
review process.

See December 6, 2013 Scoping Comment Letter, attached as Exhibit A. (Scoping Comments).

50 CALIFORNIA STREET
SUITE 500
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
T: 415.217.2000
F: 415.217.2040
E: caoffice@earthjustice.org
W: www.earthjustice.org

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 2 of 8

II.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AT OAKLAND ARMY BASE

In April 2015, Utahs Community Impact Fund Board approved the investment of $53
million in the Oakland Army Base redevelopment.2 Utahs investment would go towards
funding construction of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT), which will be
located at the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center, adjacent to the proposed Gateway Park
project. In exchange for this investment, Utah will have a guaranteed right to use 49 % of
OBOTs capacity, or 9 million metric tons.3 Utah state officials expect that OBOT will
ultimately receive 4 to 5 million metric tons of Utah coal by rail, which will then be exported by
tanker ship to Asian markets.4
The agreements committing Utah to this investment in OBOT are still being finalized, but
if the investment goes forward, the surrounding community will be heavily affected by the
movement of significant quantities of coal through the area. Local agencies have not analyzed
how moving coal through the area would affect the local environment or the health of
community residents, and this analysis must be completed before further development at OAB
commences.
III.

BATA MUST STUDY THE EFFECTS OF A DEDICATED COAL EXPORT

TERMINAL AT THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE
A. State and Federal Environmental Laws Require Comprehensive Disclosure
of a Projects Effects.

As set forth in the Scoping Comments, CEQA and NEPA require that the public and
decisionmakers are provided a comprehensive disclosure of a projects environmental effects.
(See County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 [EIR under CEQA functions as an
environmental alarm bell whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return]; Center for
Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv. (9th Cir. 2003) 349 F.3d 1157, 1166 [NEPA
emphasizes the importance of coherent and comprehensive up-front environmental analysis to
ensure informed decision-making to the end that the agency will not act on incomplete
information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct]; Scoping Comments pp. 23.)
2

Doug Oakley, Unlikely partners: Utah investing $53 million to export coal through Oakland port, Contra Costa
Times, Apr. 24, 2015; available at http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_27981684/unlikely-partnersutah-investing-53-million-export-coal.
3

Amy ODonoghue, Utah invests $53 million in California port for coal, other exports, Deseret News, April 24,
2015, available at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627254/Utah-invests-53-million-in-California-port-forcoal-other-exports.html?pg=all
4

Ibid.

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 3 of 8

In light of the obligations imposed by CEQA and NEPA, the EIR for the Gateway Park
project must include analysis of the effects of a dedicated coal export terminal.
B. The Project Description Must Include the Oakland Army Base and OBOT
The project description in the EIR for the Gateway Park project must encompass the
redevelopment at the Oakland Army Base, including the intended uses of OBOT. (County of
Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 193 [an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua
non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR]; Scoping Comments at pp. 3-5.) Indeed, the
City of Oaklands previous Oakland Army Base Redevelopment EIR specifically includes the
Gateway Park as part of the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment project. (See Oakland Army
Base 2002 EIR, attached as Exhibit B at p. 3-31to p.3-32.) Yet, the current NOP for the
Gateway Park project inexplicably fails to similarly include the entire redevelopment area in its
project description.
Further, under CEQA, the project description must set forth information regarding the
commodities that the OBOT will handle. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. City of
Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89 [accurate project description requires disclosure of the
crude oil feedstocks that would be processed at refinery].) Informing the public about the goods
that will transit through OBOT is especially important, as Utahs investment will commit the
OBOT to handling shipments of coal, a use for OBOT that has never been disclosed to the public
or studied in the environmental review for the Oakland Army Base. The 2012 Initial
Study/Addendum to the Oakland Army Base EIR makes no mention of coal being handled at
OBOT, and simply states that the facility will handle non-containerized bulk goods, and
oversized or overweight cargo. (See Oakland Army Base 2012 Initial Study/Addendum,
attached as Exhibit C at p. 30.) The key development and leasing agreements for the Oakland
Army Base state the same, and make no mention of the OBOT handling coal. (See Lease
Disposition and Development Agreement, Attachment 7, p. 1952, attached as Exhibit D.)
In order to fulfill the requirements of CEQA, the project description for Gateway Park
must tie the park into the ongoing development at the former Oakland Army Base, and must
disclose the types of goods that will be handled at the OBOT. Failure to do so limits the publics
right to receive complete and accurate information about a project.
C. BATA Cannot Piecemeal Its Review of the Oakland Army Base
Redevelopment Project
CEQA forbids piecemeal review of the environmental impacts of a project, and an
agency must ensure that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a
large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. (See Bozung v. LAFCO, (1975) 13
Cal.3d 263, 283-84; City of Santee v. County of San Diego, (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452.)

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 4 of 8

Here, Gateway Park is a key part of the Oakland Army Base redevelopment, and BATA
cannot divorce its analysis of the Gateway Parks impacts from the impacts of the Oakland Army
Base redevelopment. Thus, BATAs environmental review must include an analysis of the
effects of the Oakland Army Base redevelopment, as well as key pieces of that development,
such as OBOT.
D. BATAs Environmental Review Must Consider Cumulative Impacts
As previously noted, even if Gateway Park is considered a separate project from the
Oakland Army Base redevelopment, its environmental review must discuss the cumulative
impacts of the Gateway Park project. (Public Resources Code 21083; CEQA Guidelines
15130(a).) The cumulative impacts analysis must include consideration of past, present and
probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts. (Public Resources Code
21083; CEQA Guidelines 15130(b)(1).) Analyzing cumulative impacts is of utmost importance
because environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources.
These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening
dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.
(Communities for a Better Env. v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, 114.)
Gateway Park and the Oakland Army Base are intimately related projects. (See Oakland
Army Base 2002 EIR, attached as Exhibit B at p. 3-31to p.3-32.) They occupy adjacent areas,
and development in both areas is linked to the ongoing redevelopment of commercial and
industrial areas along the Oakland waterfront. In light of this connection, the analysis for
Gateway Park must include consideration of the cumulative effects related to the Oakland Army
Base redevelopment.
E. BATAs Environmental Review Must Consider Effects Particular to Coal
Exports
As pointed out in the groups earlier letter, exporting coal will give rise to myriad risks
that must be addressed in BATAs environmental review. (See Scoping Comments pp. 9-28).
The most pressing risks are highlighted again here.
1. Exporting Coal Will Further Burden a Highly Impacted Community
The community surrounding the Oakland Army Base redevelopment and Port of Oakland
already suffers from poor air quality and poor health outcomes, due to Port operations and other
industrial activities in the area.5 Allowing construction of a coal terminal to go forward without
adequate study of how it will add to these burdens creates unacceptable risks to the community.

See Grace Rubenstein, Air Pollution Controversy Swirls Around Oakland Army Base Development, KQED, May
6, 2014; available at http://ww2.kqed.org/news/air-pollution-dispute-west-oakland-army-base;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrKwTm5jldE&feature=youtu.be

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 5 of 8
According to the California Environmental Protection Agencys environmental health
screening tool, CalEnviroScreen, the community adjacent to Gateway Park and the Oakland
Army base is severely burdened by diesel pollution and hazardous waste exposure, and its
residents suffer from extremely high rates of asthma.6 The health outcomes for area residents are
grim. When compared to the outcomes for residents in the hillside neighborhoods of Oakland,
residents of the area around the Army Base and Port are more likely to give birth to premature or
low birth weight children, suffer from diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer.7 Individuals
born in West Oakland can expect to die 15 years earlier than individuals born in the Oakland
Hills.8
Transporting coal through this community will only add to these already serious burdens.
According to BNSF studies (one of the rail operators that will be serving the proposed terminal),
some 500 to 2,000 lbs. of coal can be lost in the form of dust for each rail car; and coal trains are
typically composed of at least 120 cars per train.9 Other BNSF studies show that as much as
three percent of the coal in each car (around 3,600 lbs. per car) can be lost in the form of dust.10
Coal dust contains many harmful components and causes health problems as people are
exposed to fugitive coal dust from coal trains, coal storage piles, loading and unloading
practices, emissions from dust control systems, and also creates the risk of explosion and fire
from combustible coal dust.11 Continuous exposure to coal dust can have serious effects upon
lung function and lead to lung disease, which prompted the U.S. Department of Labor to pass
regulations protecting coal miners from coal dust exposures.12 Combustible coal dust pollutes
the air and puts those in the vicinity of the coal terminal at risk a recent study concluded that
the spontaneous combustion of coal stocks, in addition to the obvious safety hazard and the
potential loss of valuable assets constituted substantial sources of GHGs.13

Cal EnviroScreen Results for Census Tract 6001401700, available at http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html.

Communities for a Better Environment, East Oakland Diesel Truck Survey Report at p. 4, September 2010,
available at http://www.cbecal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Diesel-truck-study-FINAL-092710.pdf.
8

Ibid. at p. 5.

See Polly Wood, Another Voice: Coal Transport Comments Needed Now, Hood River News, Friday, January 11,
2013, available at http://www.hoodrivernews.com/news/2013/jan/11/another-voice-coal-transport-commentsneeded-now/.
10

See Hearing Transcript, July 29, 2010, Ar. Elec. Coop. Assn Petition for Declaratory Order, Surface
Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 35305, at 42:5 13.
11

See The Fire Below: Spontaneous Combustion in Coal, U.S. Dept of Energy (May 1993); available at
http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/EH-93-4-The-Fire-Below_-Spontaneous-Combustion-in-Coal.pdf.
12

75 Fed. Reg. 64411, 79 Fed. Reg. 24813.

13

http://www.worldcoal.com/news/coal/articles/Quantifying_emissions_from_spontaneous_combustion_227
.aspx#.UoFxFWXTnct.

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 6 of 8

Neighborhoods living near existing coal export terminals document significant localized
pollution, nuisance, and economic loss from coal dust.14 Thus, the environmental review for the
Gateway Park and Oakland Army Base development must examine the effects of operating a
coal terminal in West Oakland and properly mitigate its environmental and health effects.
2. Exporting Coal Will Contribute to Climate Change Effects
Exporting coal from the Port of Oakland enables the continued use of coal as a fuel
source in other regions of the world, resulting in the continued production of climate change
inducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As set forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide are responsible for increasing global
warming, and [l]imiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions.15 Coal-fired power plants are a leading source of carbon dioxide
emissions.16
As carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase, more stringent regulations are needed
in order to limit these emissions effects. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which tracks carbon dioxide emissions, recently reported that global levels of
carbon dioxide have exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded
history.17 Stabilizing levels of carbon dioxide emissions will not be enough to halt rising carbon
dioxide levels, and as stated by James Butler, the head of NOAAs Global Monitoring Division,
sharp reductions are needed in order to make meaningful changes to emissions trends:
Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the
rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but concentrations of carbon dioxide would
not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do
so slowly.
(Ibid.)

14

See Ashley Ahearn, What Coal-Train Dust Means for Human Health, Oregon Public Broadcasting, March 10,
2013; available at http://www.opb.org/news/article/coal-dust-a-closer-look/.
15

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, at p. 8, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.

16

See Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Impacts of Coal Power, available at

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VVsOKWTLeos.
17

See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Greenhouse gas benchmark reached, May 6, 2015,
available at
http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11153/Greenhousegas-benchmark-reached-.aspx.

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 7 of 8

Lawmakers in the State of California have also recognized the urgent need to reduce the
production of greenhouse gas emissions, and over the years have passed landmark legislation
like AB 32 and issued executive orders to enable reductions goals. Most recently, in April 2015,
Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order mandating that the state reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.18
The environmental review for the Gateway Park and Oakland Army Base must include
consideration of the climate change effects of operating such facilities, particularly given the
increasingly pressing need to track and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
*

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. As you aware, there is a high level
level of public interest in the potential for fossil fuel exports out of the Oakland Army Base
project and the Port of Oakland; and a high level of interest in ensuring proposals to export coal
out of these facilities are thoroughly vetted and their environmental effects fully studied and
mitigated. We therefore request that BATA conduct the full and comprehensive environmental
review required by CEQA and NEPA, and prepare an environmental review document that,
among other things, accurately describes the project in its entirety, evaluates cumulative impacts,
and evaluates the specific effects of exporting coal from the area.
Sincerely,

Irene Gutierrez, Associate Attorney

Earthjustice
On behalf of:
Sierra Club
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project
Communities For A Better Environment
Encls.
cc:

City of Oakland:
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
cityadministrator@oaklandnet.com
OBolotina@oaklandnet.com

18

Office of Governor Brown, New California Goal Aims to Reduce Emissions, April 29, 2015, available at
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18938.

Peter Lee
June 4, 2015
Page 8 of 8

CFarmer@oaklandnet.com
ZWald@oaklandnet.com
Port of Oakland:
jbetterton@portoakland.com
dedgerly@portoakland.com
mdavis@portoakland.com
Mary.nicely@asm.ca.gov
diego.gonzalez@asm.ca.gov
isabel.cortes@sen.ca.gov
BYoung@baaqmd.gov
john.gioia@bos.cccounty.us
Kevin.Jenkins@acgov.org
Claudia.Albano@acgov.org
steven.jones@acgov.org
By First Class Mail:
The Honorable Barbara Lee
Oakland District Office
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000-N
Oakland, CA 94612

Thank you, members of the Investment Committee, for

allowing me this time to comment. I am Jane Vosburg a
retired teacher from Santa Rosa, and I am here today to
ask you to divest, over a period of five years, CalSTRS
current securities in fossil fuel. Divesting from the Carbon
Tracker Institutes top 200 fossil fuel companies will
ensure the safety and stability of CalSTRS portfolio for the
long term for all CalSTRS teachers.
Global warming is the most serious threat that humanity
has ever facedin fact, our very existence as a species
depends on the actions we take today. Believe me, its
hard to say that without sounding alarmist, but the
numbers are clearwe can emit no more than 565
gigatons of CO2 before 2050 if we are to prevent a
temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius
which most world leaders agree is the maximum limit
before we hurl the planet into climate catastrophe.
Unfortunately, at our current rate of emissions we will
reach that limit by around 2030. What is even more
shocking is that fossil fuel companies already have in their
reserves the capacity to emit 2795 gigatons of CO2; thats
5 x the safety limit. The bottom-line: if we are to preserve
the planet for our children and grandchildren, the fossil
fuel industry must keep 80% of its reserves underground;
these reserves will inevitably become stranded assets.

Our moral obligation to future generations alone should

be enough to jumpstart us into action, but I will focus here
on the financial reasons for divesting.
Former Commissioner of the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission Bevis Longstreth argues that the
future prospects for fossil fuel companies are suffering
and will continue to suffer from four rapidly evolving
developments:
1. Governmental restriction
The US made headlines just this week with
EPAs Clean Power Plan announcement.
2. Advances in alternative sources of energy for power are
resulting in a lessening demand for coal, oil and gas
The Carbon Tracker Institute issued a report yesterday,
warning investors of Chinas changing coal consumption
and its impact on investments.
3. The rapidly growing grass-roots actions, including those
by stockholders groups against fossil fuel companies,
and finally,
4. The growing stigmatization of fossil fuel companies
which creates a negative domino effect within the
companies themselves including their stock valuations.
The CalSTRS Divestment Process of Engagement, Evaluation
and Divestment might be commendable under normal
circumstances, but the occurrence of rapid global warming to

the point of catastrophic climate change is not normal. We are

faced with a first-in-human-history need to stabilize the climate
to mitigate the projected suffering of our children and their
children. Business as usual is not an option.
ExxonMobils CEO Rex Tillerson was confident that none of its
hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become stranded and
the company spends $100 million a day and will do so through
2016 in search of yet more oil and gas to burn. How can
engaging with such companies convince them to relinquish 80%
of their assets? I am not convinced that engagement will be
effective in bringing the necessary changes.
In conclusion, I ask you to heed the dire warnings of big
financial institutions--HSBC, IMF, Citibank and World Bank--that
the fossil fuel industry is creating a carbon bubble. The bursting
of the dot.com bubble was bad for investors who lost $5
trillion, the bursting of the housing bubble was even worsea
loss of $7 trillion; however the bursting of the looming carbon
bubble with an anticipated loss of $26 trillion will send the
global economy into a tailspin. I urge you all as fiduciaries of
CalSTRS long-term investments to protect our CalSTRS portfolio
by divesting from fossil fuel companies and thus prevent in the
words of PricewaterhouseCooper, the Mother of all risks.

From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman <jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:53 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga; Farmer, Casey
Subject:
Caol, Petcoke, and Crude by Rail Resolution Language
Attachments: Generic coal oil and petcoke resolution_final.pdf
Hello there,
Sorry this has taken a while but we finally got the go ahead from the attorneys to share this!
Let me know if you want to talk through any of this!
Thanks,
Jess
-Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Organizer
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

From: John Wall <jwall@earthjustice.org>

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:38 PM
To: 'plee@mtc.ca.gov'
Cc: Office of the Mayor; City Administrator's Office; Bolotina, Olga; Irene
Gutierrez; Farmer, Casey; Wald, Zachary; 'jbetterton@portoakland.com';
'dedgerly@portoakland.com'; 'mdavis@portoakland.com';
'Mary.nicely@asm.ca.gov'; 'diego.gonzalez@asm.ca.gov';
'isabel.cortes@sen.ca.gov'; 'BYoung@baaqmd.gov';
'john.gioia@bos.cccounty.us'; 'Kevin.Jenkins@acgov.org';
'Claudia.Albano@acgov.org'; 'steven.jones@acgov.org'
Subject:
Comments on Gateway Park
Attachments: BATA DEIR Comment Letter (06-04-2015).pdf; Exhibit A Scoping Comments
Dec 6 2013 Final.pdf; Exhibit B OARB EIR Project Description.pdf; Exhibit C
2012 Initial Study Addendum Excerpts.pdf; Exhibit D 2012 LDDA Attachment
7.pdf
Re: Comments Related to the Environmental Review of Gateway Park and
Redevelopment of the former Oakland Army Base (SCH # 2013112003)
Dear Mr. Lee,
Please see the attached comments and exhibits.
All the best,
--John
__________________________________
John W. Wall
Litigation Assistant
Earthjustice
50 California St., Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415.217.2080
F: 415.217.2040
earthjustice.org

The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the
message and any
attachments.

DRAFT OF OAKLAND DIVESTMENT OP-ED, SACRAMENTO BEE

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Last week, the Oakland City Council unanimously approved a measure to

divest city funds from fossil fuels companies that hold the largest reserves of
coal, oil, and natural gas and to encourage the California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS) - the largest public pension fund in the nation to do the same.
CalPERS holds almost $10 billion in major fossil fuel company stocks; its
largest single equity investment is over $1.25 billion in Exxon. Heres why a
growing number of local elected officials and CalPERS beneficiaries say
CalPERS should follow the lead of Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, San
Francisco and Santa Monica and join a fast-growing movement across the
country to divest from fossil fuels.
The evidence is clear that climate change is happening now, and that we are
feeling its effects. Governor Jerry Brown recently noted that California, with its
severe drought, historically low Sierra snowpack, and devastating wildfires is
on the front lines of climate change and that humanity is on a collision
course with nature and were just going to have to adapt to it in the best way
we can. The worlds scientists and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) agree that without rapid and robust transformation of
our energy use reducing greenhouse gas emissions while shifting to clean
energy adaptation will become increasingly costly and difficult.
Theres also a big risk to keeping CalPERS dollars in fossil fuels. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) has concluded that, No more than onethird of proven reserves of fossil fuel can be consumed prior to 2050 if the
world is to limit global warming to 20C. That goal offers the best chance of
avoiding runaway climate disruption. Thus, if the worlds governments take
responsible action to prevent climate catastrophe, fossil fuel companies will
have to leave some 75% of their reserves in the ground. Those companies
are valued by investors and Wall Street analysts on the basis of their
reserves. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies continue to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars on exploration for new reserves. A growing carbon bubble
overvalued companies, wasted capital and stranded assets poses a huge
risk to investments in fossil fuels.

CalPERS recognizes this risk. It recently adopted investment beliefs that

include consideration of risk factors, for example climate change and natural
resource availability, that emerge slowly over long time periods, but could
have material impact on company or portfolio returns.
Last September, CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll, along with California
Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Controller John Chiang, and California State Teachers
Retirement System (CalSTRS) CEO Jack Ehnes, signed a letter by the
sustainability organization Ceres to fossil fuel companies citing recent
reports by leading financial analysts that if governments do act responsibly
to avoid climate chaos, 40-60% of fossil fuel company assets would effectively
be stranded without value. The letter was in line with CalPERS strategy of
constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry; it asked the companies
to explain how they plan to respond to both the risk of stranded assets, and
climate change risks such as extreme weather events that could severely
damage industry infrastructure. Exxon stated: we are confident that none of
our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become stranded, essentially
confirming their underlying fundamental business plan, which is to keep
pouring carbon into the atmosphere, literally come hell or high water.
Of course, that is why Exxon and the fossil fuel industry - in concert with the
likes of the Koch brothers - have poured millions of dollars into sowing doubt
about climate science, lobbying against clean energy and in favor of oil
subsidies, and working to undermine the low-carbon fuel and other standards
that have made California the leader in efforts to address climate change.
These regulations not only fight climate change, they also clean the air we
breathe and make our communities healthier. When state and local agencies
are working over-time to implement ambitious climate change programs and
to prepare for and respond to climate impacts, our public pension dollars
should not subsidize the companies that are fighting against us. Its time to put
our money where our mouths are.
And finally, there is a powerful and simple moral argument for divestment. It is
wrong for public pension dollars to support an industry that is wreaking havoc
on our environment, our health, and our future. As local elected officials, we
believe that our investments should instead support a future where all citizens
can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of climate change. Its time
for CalPERS to take our public pension dollars out of dirty fossil fuels, and
reinvest in building a clean energy future, for the sake of our health, our
environment and our children.

Signed,

DRAFT OF
OAKLAND EAST BAY CITIES DIVESTMENT FROM DIRTY FUELS
OP-ED, SACRAMENTO BEE

Formatted: Font: Italic

[NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION]

Last weekmonth, the Oakland City Council unanimously approved a measure

resolution to divest city funds from fossil fuels companies that hold the largest
reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas and to encourage the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) the largest public pension fund
in the nation to do the same.
CalPERS holds almost $10 billion in major fossil fuel company stocks; its
largest single equity investment is over $1.25 billion in Exxon. Heres why a
growing number of local elected officials and CalPERS beneficiaries say
CalPERS should follow the lead of Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, San
Francisco and Santa Monica and join a fast-growing movement across the
country to divest from fossil fuels.
The evidence is clear that climate change is happening now, and that we are
feeling its effects. Governor Jerry Brown recently noted that California, with its
severe drought, historically low Sierra snowpack, and devastating wildfires is
on the front lines of climate change and that humanity is on a collision
course with nature and were just going to have to adapt to it in the best way
we can. The worlds scientists and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) agree that without rapid and robust transformation of
our energy use reducing greenhouse gas emissions while shifting to clean
energy adequate adaptation will become increasingly costly and difficult to
achieve.
Theres also a big risk to keeping CalPERS dollars in dirty fossil fuels. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) has concluded that, No more than onethird of proven reserves of fossil fuel can be consumed prior to 2050 if the
world is to limit global warming to 20C. That goal offers the best chance of
avoiding runaway climate disruption. Thus, if the worlds governments take
responsible action to prevent climate catastrophe, fossil fuel companies will
have to leave some 75% of their reserves in the ground. Those companies
are valued by investors and Wall Street analysts on the basis of their
reserves. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies continue to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars on exploration for new reserves. A growing carbon bubble

Formatted: Font: Italic

 overvalued companies, wasted capital and stranded assets poses a huge

risk to investments in fossil fuels.
CalPERS recognizes this financial risk. It recently adopted investment
beliefs that include consideration of risk factors, for examplesuch as climate
change and natural resource availability, that emerge slowly over long time
periods, but could have material impact on company or portfolio returns.
Last September, CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll, along with California
Treasurer Bill Lockyer, State Controller John Chiang, and California State
Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) CEO Jack Ehnes, signed a letter by
the sustainability organization Ceres to fossil fuel companies citing recent
reports by leading financial analysts that if governments do act responsibly
to avoid climate chaos, 40-60% of fossil fuel company assets would effectively
be stranded without value. The letter was in line with CalPERS strategy of
constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry; it asked the companies
to explain how they plan to respond to both the risk of stranded assets, and
climate change risks such as extreme weather events that could severely
damage industry infrastructure. Exxon sadly statedreplied: we are confident
that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become stranded,
essentially confirming their underlying fundamental business plan, which is to
keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere, literally come hell or high water.
Of course, that is why Exxon and the fossil fuel industry in concert with the
likes of the Koch brothers have poured millions of dollars into sowing doubt
about climate science, lobbying against clean energy and in favor of oil
subsidies, and working to undermine the low-carbon fuel and other standards
that have made California the leader in efforts to address climate change.
These The good news is that clean energy regulations not only fight climate
change, they also help clean the air we breathe and make our communities
healthier. When state and local agencies are working over-time to implement
ambitious climate change programs and to prepare for and respond to climate
impacts, our public pension dollars should not subsidize the companies that
are fighting against us. Its time to put our money where our mouthsand
lungs are.
And fFinally, there is a powerful and simple moral argument for divestment. It
is wrong for public pension dollars to support an industry that is wreaking
havoc on our environment, our health, and our future. As local elected
officials, we believe that our investments should instead support a future
where all citizens residents can live healthy lives without the negative impacts

of climate change and dirty air. Its time for CalPERS to take our public
pension dollars out of dirty fossil fuels, and reinvest in building a clean
energy future, for the sake of our health, our environment and our children.
Signed,

DRAFT OF
OAKLAND EAST BAY CITIES DIVESTMENT FROM DIRTY FUELS
OP-ED, SACRAMENTO BEE
[NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION]

Last weekmonth, the Oakland City Council unanimously approved a measure

resolutionagreed to divest city funds from fossil fuels companies that hold the
largest reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to encourage the California
Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) the largest public pension
fund in the nation to do the same.
CalPERS holds almost $10 billion in major fossil fuel company stocks; its
largest single equity investment is over $1.25 billion in Exxon. Heres why aA
growing number of local elected officials and CalPERS beneficiaries say
CalPERS should follow the lead of Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, San
Francisco and Santa Monica and join a fast-growing movement across the
country to divest from fossil fuels.
The evidence is clear that climate change is happening now, and that we are
feeling its effects. Governor Jerry Brown recently noted that California, with its
severe drought, historically low Sierra snowpack, and devastating wildfires is
on the front lines of climate change and that humanity is on a collision
course with nature and were just going to have to adapt to it in the best way
we can. The worlds scientists and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) agree that without rapid and robust transformation of
our energy use reducing greenhouse gas emissions while shifting to clean
energy adequate adaptation will become increasingly costly and difficult to
achieve.
Theres also a big risk to keeping CalPERS dollars in dirty fossil fuels.
CalPERS holds almost $10 billion in major fossil fuel company stocks; its
largest single equity investment is over $1.25 billion in Exxon. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) has concluded that, No more than onethird of proven reserves of fossil fuel can be consumed prior to 2050 if the
world is to limit global warming to 20C. That goal offers the best chance of
avoiding runaway climate disruption. Thus, iIf the worlds governments take
responsible action to prevent climate catastrophe, fossil fuel companies will
have to leave some 75% of their reserves in the ground. Those companies
are valued by investors and Wall Street analysts on the basis of their

Formatted: Font: Italic

reserves. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies continue to spend hundreds of

billions of dollars on exploration for new reserves. A growing carbon bubble
overvalued companies, wasted capital and stranded assets poses a huge
risk to investments in fossil fuels.
CalPERS, which holds almost $10 billion in major fossil fuel company stocks,
recognizes this financial risk. It recently adopted investment beliefs that
include consideration of risk factors, for examplesuch as climate change and
natural resource availability, that emerge slowly over long time periods, but
could have material impact on company or portfolio returns.
Last September, CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll, along with California
Treasurer Bill Lockyer, State Controller John Chiang, and California State
Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) CEO Jack Ehnes, signed a letter by
the sustainability organization Ceres to fossil fuel companies citing recent
reports by leading financial analysts that if governments do act responsibly
to avoid climate chaos, 40-60% of fossil fuel company assets would effectively
be stranded without value. The letter was in line with CalPERS strategy of
constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry; it asked the companies
to explain how they plan to respond to both the risk of stranded assets, and
climate change risks such as extreme weather events that could severely
damage industry infrastructure. Exxon sadly statedreplied: we are confident
that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become stranded,
essentially confirming their underlying fundamental business plan, which is to
keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere, literally come hell or high water.
Of course, that is why Exxon and the fossil fuel industry in concert with the
likes of the Koch brothers have poured millions of dollars into sowing doubt
about climate science, lobbying against clean energy and in favor of oil
subsidies, and working to undermine the low-carbon fuel and other standards
that have made California the leader in efforts to address climate change.
These The good news is that clean energy regulations not only fight climate
change, they also help clean the air we breathe and make our communities
healthier. When state and local agencies are working over-time to implement
ambitious climate change programs and to prepare for and respond to climate
impacts, our public pension dollars should not subsidize the companies that
are fighting against us. Its time to put our money where our mouthsand
lungs are.

Formatted: Font: Italic

And fFinally, there is a powerful and simple moral argument for divestment. It
is wrong for public pension dollars to support an industry that is wreaking
havoc on our environment, our health, and our future. As local elected
officials, we believe that our investments should instead support a future
where all citizens residents can live healthy lives without the negative impacts
of climate change and dirty air. Its time for CalPERS to take our public
pension dollars out of dirty fossil fuels, and reinvest in building a clean
energy future, for the sake of our health, our environment and our children.
Signed,

EXHIBIT A

ALASKA

CALIFORNIA

NORTHWEST

FLORIDA

MID -PACIFIC

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

NORTHEAST

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NORTHERN ROCKIES
INTERNATI ONAL

December 6, 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Peter Lee, Project Manager
Bay Area Toll Authority
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Email: plee@mtc.ca.gov
Re:

Scoping Comments Related to the Environmental Review of Gateway Park

and Redevelopment of the former Oakland Army Base (SCH # 2013112003)

Dear Mr. Lee:

I.

INTRODUCTION

I am writing on behalf of Sierra Club, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project,

and Communities for a Better Environment to ensure that the environmental review of the Bay
Area Toll Authoritys (BATA) Gateway Park proposal complies with the basic mandates of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Members of the undersigned groups live, work and recreate in and around the
project area. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects jeopardize the health and
quality of life of these members.
It has come to our recent attention that one of the developers of the former Oakland Army
Base seeks to export coal. See Exhibit A at Port 044 (The company estimates it will handle 2 to
3 million tons of export coal annually [T]he company would like to be able to fully load a
Panamax ship to 75-80K tons. Rail access to the terminal is also important as it will result in
additional congestion of approximately one additional train per day.) The prospect of exporting
coal (or any other type of fossil fuel) out of the Oakland has never before been disclosed,
analyzed or mitigated in the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment planning and permitting
process. The significant traffic, safety, aesthetic, noise, recreational, and health, economic and
environmental justice impacts of coal exports to park visitors and to the surrounding community
are serious and undeniable. As Port staff itself acknowledges, the potential for coal exports out of
the Oakland is a controversial issue that is likely to spark widespread concern in the Bay Area.1
Given the public interest and serious environmental impacts associated with the export of coal,
the undersigned groups look forward to the opportunity to comment on an environmental review
document that fully addresses the issues discussed below.

See Exhibit A at PORT 040 (where Port staff writes that coal exports could pose substantial risk to our
operations, certainly when you have winner of the Nobel Peace Prize laying down in front of trains in
British Columbia to protest coal experts through Canada.)
1

50 CALIFORNIA STREET
SUITE 500
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
T: 415.217.2000
F: 415.217.2040
E: caoffice@earthjustice.org
W: www.earthjustice.org

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 2 of 28

II.

LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. CEQA

CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and
the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs.
(CEQA Guidelines) 15002(a)(1). The EIR is the heart of this requirement. See No Oil,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84. The EIR has been described as an
environmental alarm bell whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return. County of Inyo
v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when
possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. See CEQA Guidelines 15002(a)(2)
and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564;
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d
376, 400).)
B. NEPA
NEPA is our basic national charter for the protection of the environment. 40 C.F.R.
1500.1. NEPAs fundamental purposes are to guarantee that: (1) agencies take a hard look at
the environmental impacts of their actions by ensuring that they will have available, and will
carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts; and (2)
the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role
in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision. Robertson v.
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). NEPA emphasizes the importance
of coherent and comprehensive up-front environmental analysis to ensure informed decisionmaking to the end that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its
decision after it is too late to correct. Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest
Serv., 349 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
To accomplish these purposes, NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to
prepare a detailed statement that discusses the environmental impacts of, and reasonable
alternatives to, all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). This statement is commonly known as an
environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 C.F.R. Part 1502. An EIS must provide a full
and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts of a proposed action, supported by
evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. Id. 1502.1. As the
Ninth Circuit has stated, this consideration must amount to a hard look at the environmental
effects. Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 963 (9th Cir. 2002).

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 3 of 28

An EIS must include an analysis of direct effects, which are caused by the action and
occur at the same time and place, as well as indirect effects which . . . are later in time or
farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8. An EIS
must also consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed federal agency action together with
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including all federal and non-federal
activities. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7. As the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized, a cumulative
impacts analysis must be more than perfunctory; it must provide a useful analysis of the
cumulative impacts of past, present, and future projects. Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v.
Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, a cumulative impacts
analysis must be timely, and it is not appropriate to defer consideration of cumulative impacts to
a future date when meaningful consideration can be given now. Kern v. United States Bureau
of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, an EIS must rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project. 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a). Consideration of alternatives is
the heart of the environmental impact statement, because it compels agencies to present the
environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply
defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker
and the public. Id. Because the statement of purpose and need for an agency action will
determine the reasonable range of alternatives to be analyzed, an agency may not define the
purpose and need too narrowly. See City of Carmel-by-the Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123
F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that because the purpose and need of a project defines
the range of alternatives, an agency cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms).
III.

THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE ENTIRE OAKLAND

ARMY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
A. The Project Description Must Be Revised to Include the Entire Project

An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative
and legally adequate EIR. See County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185,
192 [139 Cal.Rptr. 396, 401]. Without it, CEQAs objective of fostering public disclosure and
informed environmental decision-making is stymied. As one analyst has noted:
The adequacy of an EIRs project description is closely linked to the adequacy of
the EIRs analysis of the projects environmental effects. If the description is
inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental
analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and Zischke, Practice
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 474 (8/99 update).)
Here, the NOPs Project description is incomplete and inaccurate. While the NOP seeks
to focus exclusively on the piece of the former Army Base that will be redeveloped into a park,
the true scope of the project includes redevelopment of the entire Oakland Army Base. In fact,

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 4 of 28

the City of Oaklands previous Oakland Army Base Redevelopment EIR specifically includes
the Gateway Park as part of the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment project. See Exhibit B at p.
3-31to p.3-32. Yet, the current NOP inexplicably fails to similarly include the entire
redevelopment area in its project description.
The artificially constrained project description is not a theoretical concern in this case.
Just adjacent to the park project lies a rail yard for trains carrying potentially dangerous
substances such as coal or other fossil fuels. The improperly narrow project description further
ignores the environmental impacts of those trains, including the aesthetic, noise, recreational,
traffic, safety, and health impacts to park visitors, when those trains are in motion nearby and are
being unloaded. The potential for fossil fuel exports out of the adjacent Port of Oakland raises a
host of separate potential issues. In fact, a 2010 study of Gateway Park, commissioned by the
lead and responsible agencies for the project, made the following apt observation:
Redevelopment of surrounding parcels for commercial, industrial, Port and
transportation uses, if not well coordinated, could create safety challenges for
pedestrians and bicyclists, could block visual access to the water or to the desired
Park access pathways, and could create unattractive back-door uses along the Park
access pathways.
Gateway Park Area: Existing and Future Conditions, prepared by Perkins and Will (March 3,
2010), attached as Exhibit C, at p. 12. The environmental review documents cannot simply
ignore these impacts by artificially constraining the project description.
Furthermore, the former Oakland Army Base has a long history of serious contamination
that is the process of being cleaned-up under the jurisdiction of the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control. The status of those clean-up efforts, including any potential lingering
impacts associated with soil disturbance and contaminated groundwater at the entire Oakland
Army Base site, must be considered part of this project. As BATAs own consultants warn:

Implementation of the Gateway Park project would require additional sampling,

modeling studies and remediation for hazardous materials in the project area;

Several known hazardous materials sites are still undergoing cleanup with[in]
mile of the project area. This could pose a risk to human health if clean[up] is
ongoing during construction activities;

Two investigations showed a list of sixteen hazardous material sites, six of which
have been remediated and closed, three of which remain open for remediation and
seven of which have an unknown status;

It was recommended as part of the Oakland Army Base EIR that further
investigation be conducted.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 5 of 28

Exhibit C at 53-54 (emphasis added). Finally, given the existing environmental burdens in the
West Oakland area and the fact that the park would have specific elements (i.e. playgrounds and
museums) that are likely to attract a concentration of children, the environmental review process
must consider environmental justice impacts and impacts to sensitive receptors. A full project
description that covers the Oakland Army Base redevelopment area, as a whole, would help
ensure that these issues are adequately disclosed, analyzed and mitigated as required by CEQA.
B. The Project Cannot Have Two Lead Agencies
The NOPs unduly narrow project description is the root of a second flaw in the
environmental review that is, shifting the lead agency role from the City of Oakland to
BATA. Because the City of Oakland served as the lead agency for the development of other
aspects of the Oakland Army Base redevelopment, it should serve as the lead agency for this
aspect of the project as well. See CEQA Guidelines 15050(a) (stating that if two or more
agencies are involved in implementing or approving a proposed project, only one agency can be
the lead agency).
C. The Lead Agency Cannot Piecemeal Its Review of the Oakland Army Base
Redevelopment Project
CEQA mandates that environmental considerations do not become submerged by
chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact on the
environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. Bozung v. LAFCO,
(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84; City of Santee v. County of San Diego, (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d
1438, 1452. Before undertaking a project, the lead agency must assess the environmental
impacts of all reasonably foreseeable phases of a project. See Laurel Heights, supra, pp. 396-97
(EIR held inadequate for failure to assess impacts of second phase of pharmacy schools
occupancy of a new medical research facility). A public agency may not segment a large project
into two or more smaller projects in order to mask serious environmental consequences. As the
Second District stated:
The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the
public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the entire
project, from start to finish. . . the purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but
to compel government at all levels to make decision with environmental
consequences in mind.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (NRDC v. LA) (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 268 (emphasis added).
By failing to consider all aspects and phases of the Oakland Army Base redevelopment,
the NOP risks masking the combined environmental impacts of the Project. CEQA prohibits
such a piecemeal approach. See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 6 of 28

Cal.App.3d 692, 720. It was precisely such piecemealing that was rejected by the court in San
Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713. In
San Joaquin Raptor, the court found that the EIR for a residential development project was
deficient because it treated the associated infrastructure improvements, including a new
wastewater treatment plant, as a separate project studied in a different EIR. The San Joaquin
Raptor court found that this separation of the sewer expansion from the residential project
improperly curtailed the project description, resulting in the fallacy of division. Id. at 729-730.
Just like the wastewater treatment plant in San Joaquin Raptor, the Gateway Park constitutes an
essential element of the Oakland Army Base redevelopment project. See Exhibit B at p. 3-31to
p.3-32. In fact, as the NOP itself states, the idea for a new park at this location was conceived
in the 1990s during planning for . . . reuse of the Oakland Army Base. NOP at 2.
IV.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT MUST CONSIDER THE

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT COMBINED WITH THE
BROADER ARMY BASE REDEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RAIL
TRANSPORT

Even if BATA and the City of Oakland claim that the Gateway Park is somehow separate
from the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Project, which would be incorrect, analysis of the
impacts of the broader Army Base redevelopment activity would nonetheless remain necessary
as part of the EIRs cumulative analysis. An EIR must discuss significant cumulative impacts.
CEQA Guidelines 15130(a). This requirement flows from CEQA Section 21083, which
requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if,
the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. . . . Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects
of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.
Public Resources Code 21083. As the court stated in Communities for a Better Environment v.
Cal. Resources Agency, (CBE v. CRA) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114:
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of
a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important
environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often
occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear
insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions
when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 7 of 28

impacts. CEQA Guidelines 15355(a). [I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a
single project or a number of separate projects. Id.
As set forth by the court in CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 117:
The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other
closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taking place over a period of time.
A legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project over time
and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future
projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects
taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guidelines 15355(b).
Mere conclusory statements are not sufficient to satisfy the cumulative impacts analysis
requirement. See Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Commn (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d
1043, 1047. A proper cumulative impact analysis must be supported by references to specific
evidence. Id. As the court in Mountain Lion Coalition explained, it is vitally important that an
EIR avoid minimizing the cumulative impacts. Rather, it must reflect a conscientious effort to
provide public agencies and the general public with adequate and relevant detailed information
about them. Id. at 1051. A cumulative impacts analysis which understates information
concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public
discussion and skews the decisionmakers perspective concerning the environmental
consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of
project approval. Id.
To comply with CEQA, an EIR must contain either a list of past, present, and probable
future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects
outside the control of the agency, or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general
plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been
adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing
to the cumulative impact. CEQA Guidelines 15130(b)(1); San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife
Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 740.
Similarly, under NEPA, an EIS must consider direct effects, indirect effects, and
cumulative effects. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on
the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural,
economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 8 of 28

V.

THE OUTDATED AND INACCURATE EIR FOR THE OAKLAND ARMY

BASE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MUST BE UPDATED TO ANALYZE,
AMONG OTHER IMPACTS, RAIL TRAFFIC AND FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTS

As explained above, there are a number of legal requirements that mandate

environmental review of the entire Oakland Army Base redevelopment project, rather than
Gateway Park alone. The City of Oakland engaged in a previous environmental review of the
Oakland Army Base redevelopment project in 2002, followed by an addendum in 2012. (SCH #
2001082058). However, new and significant information has emerged since those previous
environmental reviews, rendering those documents outdated and inaccurate. Specifically,
correspondence from the Port of Oakland documents plans to export coal from the Oakland
Army Base Redevelopment project. (See Exhibit A.) The new proposal for overseas coal
exports, including the impacts of transporting coal to California by rail from out-of-state, must be
disclosed, analyzed and mitigated in this environmental process. In addition, given the recent
and growing interest in exporting petroleum products from California,2 the potential for fossil
fuel exports, more generally, must be analyzed in the environmental review document for the
project.
The lead agency in this case should not be tempted to rely on any of the outdated
analysis in the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment EIR. This is because, as explained above,
substantial changes to the project and new information (including the export of fossil fuels)
require a fresh analysis of the project. Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21166; CEQA Guidelines
15162(c). This holds equally true of the outdated cumulative impact analysis in the 2002
Oakland Army Base Reuse EIR and its Addendum. See Bakersfield Citizens v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1217.)
VI.

A FULL EIS, RATHER THAN AN EA, IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT

UNDER NEPA

The NOP states, without any explanation, that an Environmental Assessment (EA),
rather than an EIS, will be prepared for the proposed action. An EIS is required for the proposed
action for at least two reasons. First, as explained above, significant changes to the Oakland
Army Base Reuse and new information related to fossil fuel exports, render the previous
environmental review of the reuse outdated, inaccurate, and unreliable. Similar to a lead
agencys CEQA obligations, NEPA requires an agency to prepare a supplement to either a Draft
or Final EIS if it makes substantial changes in the proposed action that is relevant to
environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action of its impacts. 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c).

See, e.g., Exhibit D (http://www.nationaljournal.com/new-energy-paradigm/amid-oil-boom-petroleumexports-surge-20131017 (last visited on December 3, 2013)).

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 9 of 28

The December 2001 NEPA document for the Oakland Army Base Reuse project contains
the following description of the proposed action: The proposed action is the disposal of OARB
land and facilities made available by its mandated closure. Reuse is treated as a secondary action,
resulting from disposal. Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of the
Oakland Army Base, Prepared for the Military Traffic Management Command by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (December 2001) at ES-1.3 This 2001 EIS nowhere mentions the potential
for fossil fuel exports, which constitutes a fundamental change in the project.
Second, the specific impacts related to coal exports are significant and warrant a full EIS,
as discussed more fully below. Finally, to the extent the Port of Oakland will be used to export
any other type of fossil fuel, those impacts must also be addressed, as explained below. In short,
the proposed action, and its related impacts, demand a supplemental EIS, rather than an EA.
VII.

SPECIFIC POTENTIAL IMPACTS RELATED TO COAL EXPORTS

A. Climate Change Impacts

Very recently, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

released the fifth version of its frequently cited report reflecting the scientific consensus that
unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. The fifth IPCC report confirms
yet again that climate change is being caused by unrestrained carbon pollution from industrial
activities. As summarized by the IPCC in an accompanying press release:
Warming in the climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes
have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over
decades to millennia. Each of the last three decades has been successively
warmer at the Earths surface than any preceding decade since 1850 Thomas
Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I said: Continued emissions of
greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of
the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.4
Reacting to the reality of climate change, in 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB
32, a landmark law to control and reduce the emission of global warming gases in California
along with the companion statute SB 1368, which prohibits California utilities from making long
term investments in coal-based electricity generation. AB 32 requires both reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions and their reduction on an ambitious time line, including a reduction of
3

Available at:
http://gate1.baaqmd.gov/pdf/0267_Part1_Environmental_Impact_Statement_Oakland_Army_Base_2001.
pdf (last visited on December 4, 2013).
4

Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf (last visited

on December 6, 2013)( emphasis in original).

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 10 of 28

CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Looking beyond 2020, Executive Order S-3-05 sets an
emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Exec. Order S-3-05. In
adopting AB 32, the Legislature made the following specific findings:
(a) Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public
health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse
impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a
reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack,
a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses
and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an
increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human healthrelated problems.
(b) Global warming will have detrimental effects on some of Californias largest
industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and
commercial fishing, and forestry. It will also increase the strain on electricity
supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air-conditioning in the hottest
parts of the state.
(c) California has long been a national and international leader on energy
conservation and environmental stewardship efforts, including the areas of air
quality protections, energy efficiency requirements, renewable energy standards,
natural resource conservation, and greenhouse gas emission standards for
passenger vehicles. The program established by this division will continue this
tradition of environmental leadership by placing California at the forefront of
national and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
(d) National and international actions are necessary to fully address the issue of
global warming. However, action taken by California to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the
federal government, and other countries to act.
(e) By exercising a global leadership role, California will also position its
economy, technology centers, financial institutions, and businesses to benefit
from national and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
More importantly, investing in the development of innovative and pioneering
technologies will assist California in achieving the 2020 statewide limit on
emissions of greenhouse gases established by this division and will provide an
opportunity for the state to take a global economic and technological leadership
role in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Cal. Health and Saf. Code 38501 (a) (e) (emphasis added). The extent of future warming
depends on whether and how rapidly California and the rest of the world reduce greenhouse gas

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 11 of 28

emissions. Even under a low emissions scenario, which assumes rapid reductions in greenhouse
gas pollution, California is projected to experience a host of impacts by the end of this century,
including 30 60% loss of the Sierra snowpack, a 10 35% increase is the risk of wildfire, 1.5
times more critically dry years, and increases in ozone formation, smog, and air quality-related
fatalities in the South Coast Air Basin. California Climate Change Center, Our Changing
Climate: Assessing the Risks to California (2006)5 at 15 (hereinafter Our Changing Climate
2006). Under a higher emissions scenario, projected impacts to California are staggering and
include a 90% loss of the Sierra snowpack and 4 6 times as many heat-related deaths. Id.
Even more alarming, recent assessments have concluded earlier analyses understate
future climate impacts. In its 2012 update to its assessment of climate change impacts to
California, the California Climate Change Center, a collaboration of researchers assembled by
the California Energy Commission, determined that sea level along the California coast could
increase by 31-55 inches by the end of the century, 9-25 inches more than its 2006 estimate.
Compare California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability &
Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California (2012)6 at 9, , (hereinafter
Our Changing Climate 2012) with Our Changing Climate 2006 at 15 (estimating 22-30 inches
of sea level rise by the end of the century). The 2012 Assessment also concluded that as early as
2050, todays 100-year storm event could strike annually as result of sea level rise. Our
Changing Climate 2012 at 9. Because the severity of these impacts will depend on societys
ability to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the choices we make today greatly influence the
climate our children and grandchildren inherit. Our Changing Climate 2006 at 2. The export of
coal from California is not only antithetical to the spirit and purpose of Californias Global
Warming Solutions Act, but would exacerbate the serious climate change impacts described
above. Id. at 38501 (a), (b).
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are projected to continue increasing unless the
major emitters take action to reduce emissions. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496,
66,539 (Dec. 15, 2009). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized the
cumulative nature of both the climate change problem and the strategies needed to combat it:
[N]o single greenhouse gas source category dominates on the global scale, and
many (if not all) individual greenhouse gas source categories could appear small
in comparison to the total, when, in fact, they could be very important
contributors in terms of both absolute emissions or in comparison to other source
categories, globally or within the United States. If the United States and the rest
5

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC- 500-2006-077/CEC-500-2006-077.PDF (last visited

on December 5, 2013).
6

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-007/CEC- 500-2012-007.pdf (last visited

on December 5, 2013).

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 12 of 28

of the world are to combat the risks associated with global climate change,
contributors must do their part even if their contributions to the global problem,
measured in terms of percentage, are smaller than typically encountered when
tackling solely regional or local environmental issues.
Id. at 66,543. Consistent with this finding, the Ninth Circuit has rejected the argument that
individual actions represent too minor of a contribution to the global problem to merit
consideration under NEPA: The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is
precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct. Any
given rule setting a [vehicle fuel-efficiency] standard might have an individually minor effect
on the environment, but these rules are collectively significant actions taking place over a period
of time. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172,
1217 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). CEQA also calls for a careful review of
impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. CEQA Guidelines 15064.4.
Both the United States and California have sought to meet the challenge of climate
change with a variety of statutory and regulatory actions to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels
and promote conservation and alternatives. At the federal level, EPA has responded with a
formal finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare, 74 Fed. Reg.
66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009), the first step in comprehensively regulating greenhouse gases under the
federal Clean Air Act. EPA has already issued some regulations relating to reducing emissions
from both mobile and stationary sources, including the June 2010 tailoring rule governing
federal Clean Air Act requirements for greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, 75
Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June 3, 2010), passenger vehicle rules, see, e.g., 2017 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, 77 Fed. Reg. 62,624 (Oct. 15, 2012), and proposed rules for power plants, see
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources 77 Fed.
Reg. 22,392 (April 13, 2012).
In short, both the United States and California have made firm and clear commitments to
address the causes of climate change and have committed to promote alternatives to projects that
generate greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate those that cannot be avoided. The proposal to
construct a coal export terminal with massive direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions needs
to be evaluated in light of those statutory and regulatory commitments.
1. An EIR/EIS for the Project Must Evaluate Direct, Indirect and
Cumulative Climate Impacts
In a landmark 2008 case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a federal agency
violated NEPA when it failed to prepare a full EIS on proposed corporate average fuel economy
(CAF) standards for light trucks. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 538 F.3d 1172. There,
the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that individual actions represent too minor of a
contribution to the global problem to merit consideration. Even more recently, the Ninth Circuit

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 13 of 28

again emphasized that reasonably foreseeable future actions need to be considered [under
NEPA] even if they are not specific proposals. N. Plains Res. Council v. Surface Transp. Bd.,
668 F.3d 1067, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting EPA guidance document).
Several cases confirm that NEPA requires evaluation of indirect impacts of projects that
facilitate movement of fossil fuels, including GHG emissions. For example, in Mid-States Coal.
for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003), the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals invalidated an EIS for a rail construction project intended to supply coal from the
Powder River Basin to power plants because it failed to analyze the emissions of burning the
coal that would be transported by the rail line. The Court found that the project was likely to
affect the countrys long-term demand for coal and hence the impacts of coal burning should
have been considered in the EIS. Similarly, in Border Plant Working Grp. v. Dept of Energy,
260 F. Supp. 2d 997 (S.D. Cal. 2003), a federal district court invalidated a decision to approve
transmission lines that would connect proposed power plants in Mexico to the U.S. power grid
because indirect effects were not considered. The Court found that the decision violated NEPA
because decision-makers failed to consider the impacts of the operation of the Mexican power
plantsincluding impacts on air quality and climatethat were closely linked to the
transmission lines. The Court found that the operation of the power plants were an indirect
effect of the transmission line project because the two were causally linked. The Court
specifically struck down the agencys decision that the projects impacts were too minimal to
require preparation of an EIS. Id.
Similarly, CEQA defines a project as an activity which may cause either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment, andthat involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate,
or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21065 9(c).)
The Guidelines augment this definition by providing that a project is the whole of an action,
which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and which is undertaken,
supported, or approved by a public agency. (Guidelines, 15378(a) [emphasis added].) The
California Supreme Court has determined that project is to be interpreted in such manner as
to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the
statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors of Mono County (1972) 8 Cal.
3d 247, 259; see also McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Reg.l Open Space
Dist. (McQueen) (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143 [Project is given a broad
interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment].
ARB has recognized the need for specific analysis of greenhouse gases under CEQA:
There is a strong need [] to aggressively address GHG emissions right now. The
pollution we contribute to the atmosphere today will continue to have climate
impacts for years, decades, and in some cases, millennia to come. And the longer
we delay in addressing the problem, the more we risk being unable to meet our

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 14 of 28

climate objective. CEQA provides a mechanism that is independent of AB 32

through which lead agencies can begin immediately to reduce the climate changerelated impacts of the projects that come before them.
California Air Resources Board, Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches
for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Oct. 2008)7 at 4.
The impacts of exporting coal are not limited to the climate impacts of its use in overseas
power plants. A valid CEQA/NEPA analysis must also consider the climate and other air
emissions of transporting these huge volumes of coal. For example, by one estimate, each trip of
a fully loaded Panamax container ship to China, burns over 1100 tons of bunker fuel. Bunker
fuel generates significant CO2 emissions and other much more potent greenhouse gases like
nitrous oxides (N2O), methane, and black carbon. It also causes a variety of other toxic and
harmful air emissions, including diesel particulates that are highly damaging to human health.
These kinds of impacts are indirect effects of the decision to authorize the coal export facility
and should be evaluated in an EIR/EIS, along with any appropriate mitigation.
The EIR/EIS must also include discussion of the impacts of mercury deposition that will
be caused by the burning of this increased volume of coal. Coal burned in Asia is a major source
of local mercury contamination. Mercury is a highly toxic pollutant that bioaccumulates and
poses severe health hazards, especially to pregnant mothers and small children.
Transportation of coal over long distances via rail also has significant environmental
impacts, including the fossil fuel consumption of moving large volumes of material hundreds or
thousands of miles. Data also shows that open coal trains lose huge volumes of coal dust during
transportation. Such discharges would add to air quality problems along the rail route.
According to BNSF studies, 500 to 2,000 lbs. of coal can be lost in the form of dust for each rail
car; coal trains are typically composed of at least 120 cars per train. In other studies, again
according to BNSF, as much as three percent of the coal in each car (around 3,600 lbs. per car)
can be lost in the form of dust. Hearing Transcript, July 29, 2010, Ar. Elec. Coop. Assn
Petition for Declaratory Order, Surface Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 35305, at 42:5 13.
This is a huge volume of coal that could escape into the air and water. Moreover, as with the
greenhouse gas impacts, this analysis must be viewed in the context of all existing and
reasonably foreseeable similar impacts.
B. The EIR/EIS Must Consider All Impacts Caused By Construction and
Operation Of the Project

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposal102408.pdf (last visited

on December 5, 2013).

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 15 of 28

Coal exports from the Oakland will affect people and places far beyond the immediate
construction zone. Every community located along the rail line between the coal mines and the
Port will be harmed, and people outside California will be affected by the climate impacts of
mining, transporting, and ultimately burning this coal.
Affected rail communities might include Richmond, Sacramento, Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced,
Modesto, Richmond, Stockton and Pittsburgh.8 The EIR/EIS must, of course, analyze the
impacts of construction and operations at and near the former Oakland Army Base, but it also
must analyze the impacts of coal trains and coal use on a much broader scale. This includes the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of coal export on public health, public safety, economics,
marine health, public investment, and climate change.
To be clear, EIR/EIS must examine the full direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project from the mining of the coal in the Powder River Basin or Utah or Colorado,
the transport of coal by rail through several states and hundreds of communities, the loading and
shipping of coal via large ocean vessels, to the burning of the coal in Asia.
1. The Public Health Issues Raised by This Project Are Significant and
Harmful.
The public health issues raised by a project of this size and extent include increased air
pollution from coal dust (mercury, arsenic, lead and uranium), diesel pollution over different
operational lifetime projections for the terminal, soil contamination by coal dust, and increased
noise. The EIR/EIS should include a specific focus on children, the elderly, and other vulnerable
members of the community. It should also consider cumulative and disproportionate impacts on
communities already exposed to high levels of air and water pollution, particularly low income
communities and communities of color. Any health impact analysis should take into account
both the needs of communities potentially affected by the en-route trains and the site, as well as
workers onsite who will be exposed at much higher levels.
a. The Project, Alone Or In Combination With Other Existing and
Future Development, Will Cause Harmful Air Impacts
West Oakland already suffers from some of the unhealthiest air in the region. Air quality
impacts and pollution from nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric
acid mist, heavy metals and coal dust must be analyzed. NO2 exposure can have a wide range of
health impacts depending on the length of exposure and various other factors. Epidemiologic
research establishes a plausible relationship between NO2 exposures and adverse health effects
ranging from the onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital admission. 76 Fed. Reg. 57105 at
57304; Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
NitrogenHealth Criteria (EPA/600/R-08/071), 5 -15.
8

See, e.g, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Map, October 29, 2013,
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/coal_energy.pdf

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 16 of 28

Particulate matter (PM) refers to a broad class of diverse substances that exist as
discrete particles of varying size. 76 Fed. Reg. 57105 at 57302. Recent studies have found an
increase in such particles that is higher from coal trains than other types of rail. Such particles are
produced by a variety of anthropogenic and natural sources, though most fine particles are
produced by anthropogenic combustion and transformations of gas emissions, like NOx, in the
atmosphere. The composition of the particles can vary greatly and can remain in the atmosphere
for weeks and disperse over thousands of miles. Depending on the size, these particles can be
inhaled and penetrate the respiratory tract to cause significant adverse health effects. Coal dust
contains many harmful components and causes health problems as people are exposed to fugitive
coal dust from coal trains, coal storage piles, loading and unloading practices, emissions from
dust control systems, and risk of explosion and fire from coal dust. See The Fire Below:
Spontaneous Combustion in Coal, U.S. Dept of Energy (May 1993). Coal is a volatile and
easily combustible materialother coal terminals have faced huge fires that pollute the air and
put emergency responders and terminal staff at risk. A recent study concluded that the
spontaneous combustion of coal stocks, in addition to the obvious safety hazard and the
potential loss of valuable assets constituted substantial sources of GHGs.9 Although difficult to
quantify, the study estimated that GHG emissions from spontaneous combustion of coal were
likely below 3%.10
Neighborhoods living near existing coal export and barging terminals on the East Coast
and Alaska document significant localized pollution, nuisance, and economic loss from coal
dust. There is a considerable body of literature surrounding the risks of coal dust from facilities
like this one that should be scrutinized carefully in the EIS. Ironically, much of this evidence
was developed by BNSF in an effort to prevail in litigation against its efforts to require coal
shippers to take additional measures to reduce dust losses.
Besides analyzing the potential detrimental effects on air quality that will arise from the
export terminal itself, a valid NEPA analysis must also consider the negative impacts that will
arise from the mining of the coal, the required transport of coal from its source in the Powder
River Basin, or Utah or Colorado, to Oakland, the burning of the coal and the disposal of coal
combustion waste. This process will affect air quality through a variety of manners. Mining of
the coal and loading it onto trains creates significant particulate matter and NOx emissions from
the explosives. The NOx emissions from the blasting is so significant that it creates visible
clouds of pollution and forces warning signs to be placed near the mines. Transportation creates
both the emissions from the diesel locomotives required to carry the coal, as well as the fugitive
coal dust that will escape the freight cars along the way, as well as during loading and unloading
on both ends of transport. These effects will have a significant impact on the ability of air
9

http://www.worldcoal.com/news/coal/articles/Quantifying_emissions_from_spontaneous_

combustion_227.aspx#.UoFxFWXTnct (last visited on December 6, 2013).

10

Id.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 17 of 28

quality control regions through which the trains will pass to meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, which are set in order to protect public health. In fact, no matter which route
the trains take from the Powder River Basin (or Utah or Colorado) to the export facility, they will
pass through numerous non-attainment and maintenance areas for the criteria pollutants they will
be emitting.
Further, a valid NEPA analysis must consider air pollution impacts that specifically
accompany transporting and burning coal overseas. Each trip of a fully loaded Panamax
container ship to China, for example, uses around 500 tons of bunker fuel per trip, generating
both significant CO2 emissions in its own right as well as a N2O, NOx, SO2, sulfuric acid mist
and a variety of other toxic and harmful air emissions, including diesel particulates that are
highly damaging to human health, as well as black carbon, one of the most potent greenhouse
pollutants in existence. T.C. Bond et al., Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate
system: A scientific assessment, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (online version
Jan. 15, 2013). The climate impact of the coal dust must also be analyzed in-depth in the EIS,
including the potential local and regional albedo change and warming impacts. Relatedly, the
EIS must consider idling ship emissions of cargo vessels at the terminal; such emissions have
been a significant source of toxic air pollution in other ports.
Exporting coal may also increase the air-quality impacts associated with its combustion.
When coal is burned domestically, we can be reasonably certain of the pollution-control
regulations to which it will be subject. However, there is no guarantee that equivalent
regulations will be in place in the Asian countries where the exported coal will be sold and
burned. As a result, the air pollution impacts of exporting American coal may be greater than if
the coal were to be burned domestically. Yet these impacts will not stay in Asia. Airborne
transport of soot, sulfur compounds, mercury, ozone, and other byproducts of coal combustion
can travel across the Pacific Ocean and affect the health of western states ecosystems and
residents. See Eric de Place, Northwest Coal Exports: Some common questions about
economics, health, and pollution (Nov. 2011) at 7. These kinds of impacts are indirect effects
of the shipment of coal and should be evaluated in an EIS along with any appropriate mitigation.
To complete the lifecycle analysis, the impacts from fugitive particular matter and heavy metals
from the transport and disposal of coal combustion waste must also be considered.
In doing an analysis of air pollution impacts, the agencies should not be tempted to rely
on the attainment status of the area alone. First, attainment designations do not tell us anything
about air impacts that will happen in the future when a new source of pollution is added. In
addition, at present, it is unclear that any part of this projects lifecycle will be subject to New
Source Review permitting. Should this be the unfortunate case, a full analysis of the air impacts
in the NEPA/CEQA process is all the more important.
Tools such as AERMOD are available and should be used to perform objective,
qualitative analysis of air impacts. It is also critical in conducting modeling analysis to use
reasonably conservative but realistic inputs into the model. For example, it would be easy, but

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 18 of 28

inaccurate, to assume the coal train travels at an average speed for its entire journey from the
Powder River Basin (or Colorado or Utah) to Oakland. However, the reality, which should be
reflected in the analysis, is that coal trains travel very slowly at certain points of their journey
because of elevation increases or safety restrictions. In addition, additional locomotive engines
are needed at certain points of the journey to make it over hills and the engines have to work
harder, and thus produce more emissions, at those points. In addition, trains idle along the way
for various reasons like crew changes and train re-configurations. Similarly, it would be easy,
but inaccurate, to assume that by the time the coal terminal is operating, only ultra-low sulfur
diesel will be used in the trains and ships. However, there are exceptions to the diesel
regulations such as the provisions for using transmix diesel that has much higher sulfur content.
Realistic assumptions of these factors need to be included in the analysis. Modeling must take
these inputs into account to be realistic. For example, expert reports and modeling on air quality
impacts from a proposed 8.8 million ton coal export facility in Oregon found that the proposed
project will cause very adverse air quality impacts in both Washington and Oregon. See AMI
Environmental AERMOD Modeling of Air Quality Impacts of Proposed Morrow Project, Final
Report, Oct. 2012 (attached as Exhibit E).
b. The Project Will Harm Water Resources
The EIS must consider effects to all surface and ground water resources within the
project area. The EIS must consider all potential water quality impacts (e.g., increased sediment
loads, possible spills, coal dust impacts, mercury deposition, changes to alluvial groundwater
quality, degradation of drinking well water), and water quantity impacts (e.g., drawdown of
aquifers, diversions or diminutions of surface flow, hydrologic changes affecting seeps and
springs, drinking water impacts) of the projects construction and operation. The agencies
should ensure that the EIR/EIS describes, in detail, the possible sources of all water needed for
the railroad and associated mining activities, including water originating in any over-allocated
water source. It should also look closely at the experience of water pollution at other coal
terminals, the reality of which is generally far from the promises made by its proponents.
The agencies also must consider cumulative water resource impacts flowing from
reasonably foreseeable coal mines in the Powder River Basin or in Utah or Colorado (e.g.,
disruption of hydrologic systems, pollution impacts), as well as impacts to water resources that
would be expected from burning the coal and disposal of coal combustion waste, whether
domestically or overseas. In addition to water availability considerations, the EIS must examine
the projects potential impacts to water quality. Contamination of river and drinking water
supplies can occur with diesel emissions and diesel spills both during project construction and
during the ongoing operation of the project, which relies on continuous activity of trains. The
TVA Kinston coal ash spill disaster is just one of many examples of coal combustion waste
contaminating water. There are dozens and dozens of less dramatic water contamination
examples from coal combustion waste pollution. In addition, drinking water supplies can
become contaminated from coal dust and coal spills. Coal will be delivered in open top rail cars
to the site. Regular movement of uncovered rail cars and the loading and unloading of these cars

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 19 of 28

cause the release of fugitive coal dust, which can further contaminate the water supplies.
Construction and operation of the railroad may also result in water quality impacts in the way of
increased sedimentation and other changes. In addition, the possibility of spills of coal and
heavy bunker oil in the Bay after loading the coal onto ocean-going vessels must be analyzed.
The EIS must assess these impacts and detail how federal, state, and local water quality
standards will be met, monitored, and maintained.
c. Public Safety Will Be Jeopardized by Construction and Operation of
the Project.
The impacts to public safety run the gamut from increased train traffic and vehicle
accidents, increased derailments and concomitant emergency response, travel time delays at
specific intersections (including the economic impacts of those delays, and impacts to/delay of
emergency services (fire, police, EMT).
Threats from frequent long trains at rail crossings all along the route from the source of
the coal to the export terminal in Oakland will mean delayed emergency medical service
response times; and increased accidents, traumatic injury and death. Each fully loaded train is
over a mile long, and this proposal would significantly increase the daily number of trains along
the rail route. These trains will bisect multiple communities along the route, leading to
significant traffic delays and potential safety issues at grade-crossings. The delay of only a few
minutes for an emergency response vehicle can mean the difference between life and death for
citizens in these rural communities. In addition, increased rail traffic will lead to increased
collisions between passenger vehicles, pedestrians, and trains; there are approximately 3,000
vehicle collisions with coal trains each year already, and 900 pedestrian accidents. Daniel A.
Lashof, et al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Coal in a Changing Climate (Feb. 2007).
In addition to the threat of delay, the EIS must review the threats associated with coal
train derailments. There were over 18 derailments of coal trains in the United States in the
summer of 2012. In 2013 alone, there have been over 90 coal train-related incidents in the U.S.
that include derailments, spills and other dumping, 36 of which were derailments. There is a
serious risk to human health from a huge increase in coal train traffic along the route to and from
the source of the coal and near the Oakland export terminal.
Coal dust has also been shown to be a cause of rail bed instability and derailments, which
can pose a significant public safety hazard. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) found
coal dust to be a pernicious ballast foulant. Surface Transportation Board Decision, Arkansas
Electric Cooperative Corporation Petition for Declaratory Order, Docket No. FD 35305 (Mar.
3, 2011). The STB further acknowledged in its coal dust proceeding that the quantity of coal
emitted by a train into the air, water and onto tracks is not insignificant. An average of 500
pounds of coal dust per rail car is lost during each trip. BNSF Railway, Coal Dust Frequently
Asked Questions (2011). Each train is composed of 120 cars or more. See Hearing, July 29,
2010, Arkansas Electric Cooperative AssociationPetition for Declaratory Order, Surface

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 20 of 28

Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 35305 at 42:5-13. The risk of train derailments is
heightened on lines with heavy coal-train traffic. Coal dust, even in small amounts, poses a real
threat to the integrity of the ballast section and track stability. Id. at 46:18-20. Surface
Transportation Board Hearing Transcript (STB Hearing Transcript), Re: Arkansas Electric
Cooperative Corporation Petition for Declaratory Order, Docket No. FD 35305 (July 29,
2010).
The EISs analysis of coal dust should include a discussion of the efficacy of surfactants
to control coal dust, potential impacts of the use of surfactants to control dust emissions, as well
as consequences from not using surfactants. First, although use of surfactants in some contexts
is common, their efficacy and safety for use on coal-carrying trains is unproven. The oft-claimed
85% control efficiency has been called junk science by coal shippers. Topping agents wear off
along the route, are themselves pollutants, and can even possibly increase the amount of coal lost
due to saltation. Phyllis Fox, Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions from Coal Train Staging at
the Proposed Coyote Island Terminal, July 19, 2013. Second, surfactants contain myriad
undisclosed chemicals, many of whose biological and ecological effects have not yet been
adequately studied. Surfactants could cause a number of potential harms, including: danger to
human health during and after application; surface, groundwater, and soil contamination; air
pollution; changes in hydrologic characteristics of the soils; and impacts on native flora and
fauna populations. See Environmental Protection Agency, Potential Environmental Impacts of
Dust Suppressants: Avoiding Another Times Beach 3 (May 30-31, 2002). Third, while BNSF
has a voluntary tariff encouraging the use of surfactants, STB proceedings evaluating that
practice are ongoing. In the absence of binding regulation, many coal companies are electing not
to apply any sort of topping agent. See Some shippers not complying with industrys coal dust
tariff, Platts Energy Week, Nov. 3, 2011. As a result, the use of surfactants is not certain, and so
the analysis of the impact of coal dust must consider scenarios both without and with any sort of
surfactant use.
2. The Overall Economic Impacts of Coal Exports Are Likely Negative.
The EIS must further review the economic impacts of this project. Issues here include
the impact of dramatic increases in coal train traffic on real estate values and damage to property
from coal dust, diesel emissions, vibration, and noise. There are also serious concerns relating to
the impact of an increase in coal rail traffic on other non-coal shippers of freight by rail,
including ports and shippers of agricultural products. These same issues may dramatically affect
passenger rail interests. These significant rail traffic increases are likely to create major impacts
on communities affected by vehicle traffic problems related to delays at non-grade separated
railway crossings, which will affect non-rail freight mobility, access to ports, retailers, tourist
centers, and employers. On the marine side, there are likely to be significant economic impacts
on marine dependent industries, such as commercial fisheries and shellfish growers, tourism, and
other businesses.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 21 of 28

a. The Project, Individually And In Combination With Other Proposed

Coal Export Projects, Threaten Increases In Rail Traffic For A Single
Commodity, With Major Impacts On Other Rail Users And Affected
Communities..
The increased rail traffic associated with shipping unknown quantities of coal per year
from Oakland could represent a huge increase in freight rail usage and would likely present
significant conflicts with other users of the rail line, including freight and passenger shippers. It
is critical that the EIS include a full analysis of the cumulative impacts from this proposal
combined with other coal and fossil fuel export proposals in the region, including the capacity of
the rail system to handle these increases without significant adverse impacts on other shippers,
passenger rail users, and communities.
Unless mitigated with significant capacity additions, increases of coal train traffic is
likely to present significant adverse impacts on other users of the rail line, including grain and
fruit shippers, intermodal users, ports, industries, aircraft manufacturers and passenger railall
of whom are critically dependent on timely and affordable access to the rail system. Existing
state studies from the Northwest indicate that coal rail traffic is already having a significant
negative impact on the ability of Washington State shippers to access markets where coal traffic
from the Powder River Basin is dominating the rail lines; experts working for that State have
concluded that the high volume of coal trains moving east out of the Powder River Basin has
made it virtually impossible to route time-sensitive intermodal trains moving from Pacific
Northwest ports to central and southeast gateways such as Kansas City and Memphis through the
near continuous flow of slow-moving coal trains. Adjusting to this, BNSF has shifted most
intermodal traffic destined to locations south of Chicago to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach. These reports also confirm that the railroad prioritizes unit trains, such as coal trains,
over other shippers. The EIS should fully analyze the impacts on other types of shippers if
inbound and outbound freight or passenger rail traffic is diverted or eliminated due to the
competition with coal trains, such as agricultural products. Further, the EIS should look at
impacts related to diversion of this freight rail traffic to other modes, including trucks and
barges.
The EIS must also analyze impacts, mitigation measures and potential funding relating to
the use of passenger rail on these same lines. The EIS must analyze how existing and expanded
passenger rail uses will be impacted if freight traffic increases. The EIS should further consider
existing and prospective public funding for rail capacity to purchase passenger rail service. The
EIS should include all needed capacity improvements that will be required to address at least
those areas where the planned coal train traffic will exceed the capacity of the existing system.
b. The Project Is Likely To Create Very Significant Impacts Relating to
Rail Traffic In Dozens of Impacted Communities

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 22 of 28

Increases in freight rail traffic for coal export could result in significant adverse impacts
on other traffic and freight mobility within affected communities. These traffic impacts cause
direct economic losses to affected communities and businesses through interruptions of freight
mobility, challenges for customers reaching businesses, and lost employee time. Air pollution
impacts related to increased idling and congestion may also directly impact growth in affected
communities. It is imperative that the EIS fully analyze these issues in all communities that are
likely to be similarly affected along the entire corridor from the source of the coal to the Oakland
export terminal.
The EIS must also look at necessary mitigation for these traffic and mobility concerns
and the question of who will bear the costs of this mitigation. Under federal law, railroads are
generally limited to paying no more than 5% of the costs of grade separated crossings.
Typically, the railroad pays far less than that amount. Given that the costs of grade separated
crossings to address these traffic issues are in the tens and hundreds of million dollars, the EIS
must analyze any mitigation that is needed in response to the huge increases in coal train traffic
associated with this project to ensure that the public does not pay for private benefits.
Right of way fires on the land of property owners along rail lines with coal trains are also
a known safety and economic risk that must be analyzed. Last year, several coal-related fires
occurred along a railway in North Dakota. Coal dust lodged in the ballast, and from constantly
passing coal trains, kept the track fires smoldering for several days. As South Heart Fire Chief
said, When there is that much coal dust, there is not a lot we can doyou think you have it
outand then half-a-day later, it flares up once again.
Finally, it is particularly critical that the evaluation of rail impacts be placed in the
context of cumulative effects from multiple projects, currently under consideration, that will
dramatically raise the amount of train traffic in California. In addition to the other coal export
terminals that will in part use the same lines as this one, there are numerous proposals to increase
the amount of crude oil travelling by rail in California.11 Together, these projects will add toxic
and dangerous crude oil shipments to the already overcrowded rail lines. The EIS should
evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects,
including crude oil, coal export, and liquefied natural gas terminals in California. This includes
the cumulative impacts associated with rail traffic, vessel traffic, and associate pollution and
public health impacts.

11

See, e.g., http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/tesoro-rail-crude-idUSL2N0IS13N20131107

(U.S. refiner Tesoro Corp has tripled the amount of North Dakota Bakken oil delivered by crude-only
trains to its northern California refinery since the first such shipment in September) (last visited on
December 6, 2013); http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Moving-crude-by-rail-works-forrefiners-4547720.php(Valero hopes to have approval soon from local officials to ship North American
crude by rail to its Benicia plant in Northern California and complete the project by year's end.) (last
visited on December 6, 2013)

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 23 of 28

c. Coal Exports Threaten Nearby Property Valuations

Recent studies have indicated that the massive increases in coal train traffic induced by
the proposed terminal may directly result in significant reductions in property values, affecting
owners, other taxpayers, and affected communities. See Increased Coal Train Traffic and Real
Estate Values, The Eastman Company (Oct. 30, 2012). The effect of freight railroad tracks and
train activity on residential property values, Robert A. Simons, A. El Jaouhari (Summer 2004);
Examining the Spatial Distribution of Externalities: Freight Rail Traffic and Home Values in Los
Angeles, Futch, M. (Nov. 11, 2011). Given these findings elsewhere, it is clear that a substantial
increase in rail traffic has important impacts that need to be assessed. The EIS should look at
these issues along the entire rail corridor, using specific estimates of rail traffic associated with
the project, as well as the cumulative impacts of other coal export facilities, oil and gas exports,
and proposed crude-by-rail projects.
d. Impacts On Economies Dependent On the Marine Environment
There are likely to be significant adverse impacts and major risks posed to the San
Francisco Bay aquatic ecosystem from this project. In addition to the impacts on ecosystems and
to those who fish in the Bay for sport and food, these issues must be evaluated for the impacts
and risks that they pose for marine related businesses and economies, including tourism and
other related businesses. These businesses cumulatively provide significant amounts of revenue
in positive economic impacts to the state and region. Impacts to other forms of recreation, e.g.,
boating, hiking, birding, should be closely analyzed.
e. Economic Uncertainty and Market Volatility Surrounding Coal
Exports Must Be Considered In The EIS
Coal export facilities are speculative financial ventures. See, e.g., Coal Export: A History
of Failure for Western Ports, VandenHeuvel, B. & E. de Place (Aug. 2011). Coal export
terminals in Portland and Los Angeles were both shut down at significant taxpayer expense. One
of the few terminals shipping thermal coal from the West Coast of the United Stateslocated in
Seward, Alaskarecently cutback operations and laid off workers citing adverse international
market conditions.
Moreover, the EIS should examine the market uncertainty and volatility surrounding
coal. Domestic demand for coal has fallen substantially since 2008, as U.S. electricity generators
have turned to cleaner burning natural gas, renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency.
The reasons for this change undoubtedly include the increasing environmental control costs for
burning coal, as well as a growing recognition among companies and financial analysts that
mining and burning coal to produce electricity is no longer a viable strategy to produce an
acceptable return on investment. The EIS should analyze the extent to which these trends are
being followed in the proposed export markets, including the trends to replace coal with
renewables, efficiency, and natural gas for energy generation and the impacts on the long-term

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 24 of 28

prospects for this project. Potential domestic electricity pricing impacts to U.S. consumers from
exporting coal should also be examined.
Simply put, since 2010, the global price for coal has collapsed and the putative
justification for exporting to U.S. coala presumed insatiable demand for coal in Chinahas
fallen apart. In fact, a June 2013 independent analysis, entitled Asian Coal & Power: Less, Less,
LessThe Beginning of the End of Coal (Bernstein Research, 2013), flatly declared that China
will cease importing coal in 2015 and may indeed become a net exporter once again. Chinas
installation of clean, renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is booming.
The EIS should evaluate the risk that Oakland coal exports may join the other projects
that have experienced economic failure, sometimes leaving significant clean-up liabilities, public
expenditures, and unfulfilled expectations for local communities. The EIS should consider
potential mitigation measures relating to these risks, including the need for the project
proponents to post a bond or provide other security to ensure that communities and local
governments are not left with the responsibility for site clean-up and other costs in the event of
project failure.
3. The EIS Must Analyze Harm to Wildlife, Marine, and Aquatic Health.
The EIS must include an analysis of coal export-related impacts to biological, marine,
and aquatic resources on both public and private lands and waters in the affected area, that is, in
the area from the mining of the coal in the Powder River Basin (or Utah or Colorado), through
the rail corridor to the project, through the loading and shipping of the coal through the San
Francisco Bay and surrounding waters, to its final destination and combustion in Asia. Such
resources include marine and terrestrial mammals, game and non-game resident and migratory
bird species, raptors, songbirds, amphibians, reptiles, fisheries, aquatic invertebrates, wetlands,
and vegetative communities. The agencies must ensure that up-to-date information on all
potentially impacted flora and fauna is made available, so that adequate impact analyses can be
completed. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss must all be assessed, along with any
resulting impacts to wildlife and marine species.
Stormwater is another critical concern, given the toxicity of the material being shipped,
and the historic contamination of this brownfields site. The San Francisco Bay is already listed
as impaired under the states 303(d) list, and under Ninth Circuit precedent, any additional
discharge to such impaired water bodies is prohibited. Increased wildlife mortality from
railroad and mining related activity (including, but not limited to, increased human conflicts,
habitat loss, and increased hunting pressure) must also be discussed. Impacts to wildlife
migration corridors must be evaluated.
Increased shipping traffic brings with it an increased risk of collisions, groundings, spills,
discharges, and accidents during vessel fueling. For instance, the devastating Cosco Busan spill

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 25 of 28

in the Bay just a few years ago could become a more common occurrence.12 Similarly, the
potential for introduction of invasive species, including through ballast water, must be assessed,
as tens of thousands of cubic meters of ballast water per visit will be discharged by the shipping
vessels. Hull fouling presents a similar danger of invasive species introduction. All of these
risks and impacts must be carefully scrutinized. And, it is particularly important for the agencies
to evaluate increases in vessel traffic in the context of the cumulative impacts from multiple
current and reasonably foreseeable fossil fuel-related projects.
VIII.

THE EIS MUST ANALYZE A REASONABLE RANGE OF

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING NO FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTS.

The range of alternatives is the heart of the environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R.
1502.14. It is well understood that NEPA requires that an agency rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. Utahns for Better Transp. v. Dept of Transp.,
305 F.3d 1152,1168 (10th Cir. 2002) quoting 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a), modified on rehearing
Utahns for Better Transp. v. Dept of Transp., 319 F.3d 1207 (2003). The alternatives discussed
should provide different choices from which decisionmakers and the public can make an
informed choice after considering the environmental effects of the alternatives. See Westlands
Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004). The range of alternatives
should also include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency, and
include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives. 40 CFR 1502.14. In addition to the need for thorough consideration of the
impacts of permitting fossil fuel exports, the EIS must consider the option of not including fossil
fuel exports out of Oakland.
XI.

THE EIS MUST CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

IMPACTS OF FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTS

All federal agencies are encouraged to consider environmental justice in their NEPA
analysis, evaluate disproportionate impacts, and identify alternative proposals that may mitigate
these impacts. The fundamental policy of NEPA is to encourage productive and enjoyable
harmony between man and his environment. In considering how to evaluate progress in
reaching these aspirational goals, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defined effects
or impacts to include ecological...aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health
impacts, whether direct, indirect or cumulative.13 Recognizing that these types of impacts

12

See, e.g., http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/documents/coscobusan.pdf. The Cosco Busan cargo ship

hit the Bay Bridge in heavy fog in 2007, resulting in the worst spill in the San Francisco Bay for 20 years,
and significant fish and bird kills.
13

CEQ, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10,
1997, available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 26 of 28

might disproportionately affect different communities or groups of people, President Clinton

issued Executive Order 12898 in 1994,14 directing each federal agency to, among other things:

Make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying

and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations,

Identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among

minority populations and low-income populations,

Evaluate differential consumption patterns by identifying populations

with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife,
and

Collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns

of populations who principally rely on fish and/or wildlife for
subsistence.

CEQs Guidance for Environmental Justice under NEPA15 called for agencies to
consider specific elements when considering environmental justice issues:

Agencies should consider the composition of the affected area, to

determine whether minority populations, low-income populations, or
Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the proposed action, and if
so whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations, or Indian tribes.

Agencies should consider the potential for multiple or cumulative

exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected
population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards.
Agencies should consider these multiple, or cumulative effects, even if
certain effects are not within the control or subject to the discretion of the
agency proposing the action.

Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations,
59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Executive Order 12898; February 11, 1994).
14

15

CEQ, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10,
1997, available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 27 of 28

Agencies should recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational,

historical, or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical
environmental effects of the proposed agency action. These factors should
include the physical sensitivity of the community or population to
particular impacts; the effect of any disruption on the community structure
associated with the proposed action; and the nature and degree of impact
on the physical and social structure of the community.

Agencies should be aware of the diverse constituencies within any

particular community. Agencies should seek tribal representation in the
process in a manner that is consistent with the government-to-government
relationship between the United States and tribal governments, the federal
governments trust responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and any
treaty rights.

The EIS must examine the environmental justice impacts flowing from this project. The
local community in West Oakland has suffered a long history of disproportionate impacts from
pollution. The potential export of fossil fuel will only serve to exacerbate the existing
environmental justice concerns in the area. The EIS must also study the rail transportation of
coal from its source, and the mining of the coal. Tribes along the rail route and in the area of
increased mining may also be impacted by the proposed railroad and the increased mining
associated with this project.
The EIS must include demographic information for West Oakland and along the rail lines
that would ship coal to the terminal, as well as at the mine sites. These environmental justice
issues further underscore the need for a full EIS that includes a health impact assessment of the
project.

Peter Lee
December 6, 2013
Page 28 of 28

Thank you for your consideration of these scoping comments. As you are no doubt
aware, there is likely to be an extraordinary level of public interest in the potential for fossil fuel
exports out of the Oakland Army Base project and the Port of Oakland; the harmful impacts
caused by the proposed coal exports will occur at the local, regional, and global scale; and the
relevant federal and state laws emphasize a thorough, up-front review of all the environmental
effects of proposed actions. We reiterate our request for a full EIS for the action under NEPA
and that the project description be updated to reflect the whole of project, including the reuse of
the entire Oakland Army base and that the impacts of fossil fuel exports to future Gateway Park
visitors be fully disclosed analyzed and mitigated. We look forward to a Draft EIR/EIS that the
full direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project from the mining of the coal
at its source, the transport of coal by rail through several states and hundreds of communities, the
loading and shipping of coal via large ocean vessels, to the combustion of the coal in Asia.

Sincerely,

Suma Peesapati, Staff Attorney

Earthjustice

On behalf of:
Sierra Club
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project
Communities For A Better Environment

Cc:

City of Oakland
Port of Oakland

EXHIBIT B

Description

3.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DESCRIPTION
This chapter provides information regarding the proposed action, i.e., approval and
implementation of the Oakland Army Base (OARB) Area Redevelopment Plan, including the
OARB Reuse Plan. Specifically, this chapter provides an overview of the proposed
redevelopment program 1 and of key redevelopment entities; background about the Base
closure, transfer and reuse planning process, as well as background about the redevelopment
planning process; a statement of purpose, need, and objectives of redevelopment; and a
description of the location and characteristics of the project area. This general and background
information is followed by a description of redevelopment activities. The chapter concludes with
information regarding required approvals, permits, and consultations that may rely on this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

3.1

OVERVIEW

13
14

This section provides an overview of the study area, the proposed redevelopment, and key
entities involved in redevelopment.

15
16

As illustrated by Figures 1-1 and 3-1, the OARB area redevelopment project area is located in
the San Francisco Bay region, in the western portion of the City of Oakland, Alameda County.

17

3.1.1

The Study Area

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The study area for this EIR primarily comprises the approximately 1,731-acre OARB
Redevelopment Area as described in the Legal Description of the Project Area Boundaries
attached to, and incorporated into the OARB Area Redevelopment Plan (Oakland
Redevelopment Agency 2000). In addition, the study area for this EIR includes modifications
and additions to the legal description of the Redevelopment Project Area boundaries to allow for
thorough environmental review of all actions anticipated as a result of approval and
implementation of the OARB Area Redevelopment Plan and OARB Reuse Plan. These
differences, depicted on Figure 3-2, include the following:

26
27
28

Inclusion of approximately 56 acres of submerged lands that are part of the OARB but not
included in the legal description of the Redevelopment Area, and other submerged lands
immediately southeast of the OARB and west of existing Berth 10.

29
30
31

Modifications to the shoreline of the Oakland Inner and Middle harbors. These modifications
were completed as part of the Port of Oaklands Vision 2000 Program, and occurred
following adoption of the Redevelopment Area boundaries.

32
1

The Redevelopment Plan describes a series of related actions, or a program, which constitutes a project under
CEQA. The terms program and project are used interchangeable in this EIR.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-1

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

insert

Figure 3-1

Regional Vicinity

Public Review Draft

Page 3-2

April 2002

Description
1

Insert

Figure 3-2

OARB Redevelopment Project Area, Sub-Districts, and Area Landmarks

Public Review Draft

Page 3-3

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2

Inclusion of land adjacent to the Union Pacific (UP) Intermodal railyard that is needed to fully
implement rail improvements identified in the Reuse Plan.

3
4
5

Other minor boundary adjustments (including both additions and subtractions of land)
throughout the Redevelopment Area to accurately represent existing conditions and planned
land uses.

6
7
8
9

In total, these differences represent a net increase of approximately 70 acres to the 1,731-acre
Redevelopment Area. For ease of reference, this now approximately 1,800-acre redevelopment
study area is referred to herein as the OARB area redevelopment project area, or simply
project area.

10

3.1.2

The Redevelopment Program

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The proposed action is the approval and implementation of the OARB Area Redevelopment
Plan and OARB Reuse Plan to redevelop the project area. The core of the project area is the
approximately 430-acre OARB (also herein the Base), which was slated for closure by the
federal government in 1995. In total, redevelopment activities are planned for approximately 710
acres, and the EIR will examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of that development
to the extent activity-specific information is known about each of the proposed land uses. The
purpose of redevelopment is to eliminate or alleviate blightphysical and economic liabilities
over the whole project area in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
people of both the blighted community and of the State of California. Build-out of the project
area is expected to occur by 2020. As depicted by Figure 1-2, the project area is subdivided into
three sub-districts:

22
23

1. The approximately 470-acre2 OARB sub-district. The OARB sub-district is further

subdivided into two development areas, and a number of miscellaneous parcels:

24
25
26
27
28

the 228-acre City of Oaklands Gateway development area, generally located in the
northwest portion of the sub-district. The Gateway development area includes
approximately 189 acres of the OARB and several miscellaneous parcels generally
located outside of the OARB and north of Burma Road. These miscellaneous parcels
are currently in mixed ownership, including the Port and Caltrans.

In addition to approximately 14 miscellaneous acres, the OARB sub-district includes approximately 26 acres of OARB
lands currently owned by the U.S. Army Reserves (Reserves). The property owned by the Reserves is located at two
distinct areas: the 19-acre Subaru site is immediately above West Grand Avenue; the 7-acre Enclave comprises two
smaller parcels grouped in the south central OARB. Redevelopment as proposed includes acquisition of these lands
by the City (approximately 17 acres of the Subaru site) and the Port (approximately 2 acres of the Subaru site and the
7-acre Enclave). The Reserves has indicated its current facilities are substandard and relocation of their facilities is
required to prevent impacts to morale, and to allow the units to conduct effective, realistic, and meaningful training to
meet its readiness and mobilization missions (U.S. Army Reserves 2001). The City, Port and East Bay Municipal
Utility District (EBMUD) are currently in negotiations to acquire these lands. (EBMUD plans to acquire an
approximately 16-acre area known as the Heroic War Dead Site, which is outside of the project area, and not
addressed in this EIR.)

Public Review Draft

Page 3-4

April 2002

Description

1
2
3
4

the 241-acre Port of Oaklands Port development area, located in the west and
southeast portions of the sub-district. The Port development area includes approximately
185 acres of land area from the OARB and an additional 56 acres of OARB submerged
land.

2. The approximately 1,290-acre Maritime sub-district, and

3. The approximately 41-acre 16th/Wood sub-district.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

The project area was established by the City in 2000, when the City adopted a redevelopment
plan to combat economic and physical blight that currently exists in western Oakland within the
broad project area, and blight that could result from, or be exacerbated by, the closure of the
OARB (Redevelopment Plan for the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Project, City of
Oakland 2000). The Redevelopment Plan defines a framework of agency powers, duties, and
obligations to enable redevelopment of the project area. The Redevelopment Plan incorporates
in its entirety (and as may be amended from time to time) the OARB Reuse Plan3 (Amended
Draft Final Reuse Plan for the Oakland Army Base, OBRA 1998, as amended 2001). The
Reuse Plan describes a Flexible Alternative land use plan for the Gateway development area
with proposed land uses and approximate densities as envisioned by the West Oakland
community and the Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA).4 The Reuse Plan also describes
the Port of Oaklands plans for maritime and rail facilities in the Port development area.

19
20

Redevelopment would replace existing usessome in derelict conditionwith vibrant, mixeduse development. Redevelopment benefits include the following:

21

Job generation

22

Increased number of Oakland housing units

23

Improved visual environment

24

Improved land use variety and compatibility

25

Increased public access to and along the Oakland waterfront

26
27

Remediation of site contamination as necessary, and related improvement to surface and

groundwater quality

28

Improved efficiency of Port operations

29

Ability of the Port to handle 2020 cargo throughput projections

Note the Reuse Plan is officially referred to as a draft final until its formal adoption by the OBRA, at which time it will
simply be the final Reuse Plan.

The Redevelopment and Reuse plans, herein summarized and incorporated by refe rence pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21061, are available for review at 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3330 during regular
business hours.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-5

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Build-out of the proposed land uses in the project area is projected to result in up to 375 new
live/work units 5, approximately 4.1 million square feet of new business-oriented development,
approximately 3 acres of new community-serving uses, nearly 31 acres of park and open space,
approximately 120 acres of new maritime cargo terminals and 82 acres of re-configured terminal
area, 105 acres of ancillary maritime support uses and a relocated and improved rail facility.
Note this build-out does not include ongoing Port modernization, as described in Section 3.6.4,
nor other Port improvements in the Maritime sub-district that have already been approved.
Figure 3-3 conceptually illustrates the redevelopment strategy, and Table 3-1 describes in more
detail the projected build-out.
3.1.3

Key Redevelopment Entities

11
12
13

Planning and implementation of the redevelopment program involves numerous government

agencies and members of the community. A general description of key entities and their roles in
base reuse and project area redevelopment is provided below.6

14
15

The U.S. Army. The U.S. Army (Army) constructed and operated the OARB. The Army is
transferring OARB property to several entities for reuse.

16
17
18

The U.S. Army Reserves. The U.S. Army Reserves (Reserves) has retained certain OARB
property. The Reserves is expected to transfer this OARB property to other entities, including
the City, the Port, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), in the future.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The California State Lands Commission. The California State Lands Commission (SLC) has
jurisdiction over tidelands trust lands, which are certain tidal and submerged lands granted by
the state in trust to cities and counties to develop harbors in furtherance of state and national
commerce. These grants require that granted lands be used consistent with the public trust and
terms of the grant and require the grantee to use the revenues produced from these lands for
trust purposes consistent with the grants. The existence and extent of lands subject to the trust
at OARB has not been determined. The SLC has taken the position that a portion of the OARB

27
5

Under Community Redevelopment Law at the time the OARB area project area was established, 20 percent of a tax
increment generated within a district must be used by the redevelopment agency to increase, improve, and preserve
the supply of affordable housing (HSC 33334.2). On December 11, 2001 the Oakland Redevelopment Agency
adopted a resolution increasing the percentage to 25 for redevelopment areas that achieve a 120 percent debt
coverage threshold. While such housing is required to be located within the City, it need not be located within the
project area, if the agency and legislative body find this would benefit the project area (HSC 33334.2(g). Affordable
housing demolished or removed for purposes of redevelopment must be replaced within four years of such
destruction or removal (HSC 33334.5). No such housing will be demolished as a result of redevelopment.
Furthermore, the redevelopment program provides for setting aside required monies, and locating required housing at
sites located outside the project area. The characteristics and location of this housing have not been identified.
Therefore, sufficient information does not currently exist with which to analyze impacts of its construction and
occupation; when such information is developed, the housing project(s) may be subject to environmental review
under CEQA.

See also Table 3 -2, which lists relevant agencies, as well as approvals, permits, or consultation processes required to
implement this redevelopment program, and Figure 4.2 -1, which depicts jurisdictional boundaries.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-6

April 2002

Description
1

insert

Figure 3-3

Conceptual Redevelopment Strategy

Public Review Draft

Page 3-7

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
Table 3-1
OARB Area Redevelopment Project Area Buildout, 2002 through 2020

Potential Land Uses

Light Industry
Office, R&D
Retail
Warehouse/distribution
Total square feet
Live/work units
From uses listed above
Park, Public Access
New Maritime Terminals
Terminal Reconfiguration
Maritime Support
Rail
d
Acres to be redeveloped
Total acres

Units
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.

ac.
ac.
ac.
ac.
ac.
ac.

Redevelopment Sub-District
a
OARB
th
Maritime 16 /Wood
Gateway
Port
c
494,000
0
305,000
1,528,000
0 1,437,000
25,000
0
1,300
300,000
0
0
2,347,000
0 1,743,300
375
168
29

0
0
55

15

2
130
187
241

212
228

0
0
65
82
e
88
35
270
1,290

40
1
0
0
0
41
41

Total
799,000
2,965,000
26,300
300,000
4,090,300
375
208
30
120
82
105
165
710
1,800

Notes:
a
As required by federal BRAC law, redevelopment of the OARB sub-district includes a Homeless Assistance
Accommodation program. Redevelopment as proposed would locate the entire program outside the project
area; however, Chapter 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Redevelopment Program, examines alternatives for
locating the Homeless Assistance Accommodation program on site.
b
sq. ft. = square feet; ac. = acres
c
Includes 50,000 square feet of training facilities for the Joint Apprentice and Training Committee (JATC).
d
Acreages identified above are gross land use acreage, and are inclusive of roadway and utility rights -of way.
e
See discussion of ancillary maritime uses (AMS), Section 3.6.4.

2
3
4
5
6

that includes the property west of Maritime Street, is within the tidelands trust boundary. The
Port and OBRA are working with the SLC to execute an exchange, whereby tidelands trust
requirements would be transferred from portions of the Gateway development area to the Port
development area and Maritime sub-district.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over the San
Francisco Bay, its shoreline, and certain related waterways. BCDC exerts its authority through
its regulatory program and two planning documents: the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan
(the Seaport Plan, BCDC and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC], 1982, as
amended through 2001) and the San Francisco Bay Plan (the Bay Plan, BCDC 1968, as
amended through 2001). These plans define priority use areas at specific shoreline sites. If a
site is designated a priority use area in the Seaport Plan or the Bay Plan, it is reserved for that
use. Until the plans were amended in April 2001, the entire OARB was designated as port
priority use. In September 2000, the City and Port filed a joint application to amend the Seaport
Public Review Draft

Page 3-8

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5

Plan and Bay Plan to reconfigure the development areas on the Base, to remove the port
priority use designation from the Gateway development area, and to designate other specific
parcels as port priority use areas. BCDC then amended the plans in April 2001 to reflect the
requested change in land use designation. BCDC retains ongoing permit jurisdiction over the
Bay and shoreline areas of the project area.

6
7
8
9

Department of Toxics Substance Control. The Department of Toxics Substances Control

(DTSC) is a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency responsible for
approving the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), approving the Armys early transfer (FOSET) of the
Base to OBRA, and overseeing remediation at the OARB.

10
11
12

The East Bay Regional Park District. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) is a
regional agency that is expected to receive certain OARB property (15 acres) from the Army via
the Department of the Interior for a public park.

13
14
15
16
17

The Oakland Base Reuse Authority. The Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA) is the Local
Reuse Authority (LRA) responsible for managing OARB assets and planning reuse of the Base.
The OBRA operates the interim leasing operations, will acquire property from the Reserves, will
accept the majority of OARB property from the Army, and will, in turn, transfer that property to
other entities for reuse/redevelopment.

18
19
20
21
22
23

The City of Oakland. The City of Oakland (City) adopted the Redevelopment Plan, establishing
the project area, and empowered the Oakland Redevelopment Agency to enact that plan and
oversee redevelopment. The City is the lead agency under CEQA and, except as otherwise
provided in the City Charter with respect to certain Port-related matters, is also responsible for
planning, including amending the General Plan, rezoning, issuing land use approvals, and
jointly with the Port altering the Port area boundary from time to time.

24
25
26

The Oakland Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland
(also the Oakland Redevelopment Agency, ORA) is expected to accept the majority of OARB
land from the OBRA, transfer lands to other entities, and implement the Redevelopment Plan.

27
28
29
30

The Port of Oakland. The Port of Oakland (Port) is expected to accept certain OARB lands
from the ORA, acquire land from the Reserves, annex these lands to the Port area, waive
certain reversionary rights, approve changes in the Port area jointly with the City to allow City
development to proceed, and approve redevelopment activities within its jurisdiction.7

Section 706(3) of the City of Oakland Charter vests in the Board of Port Commissioners complete and exclusive power
over all the waterfront properties, and lands adjacent thereto, or under water, structures thereon, and approaches
thereto, storage facilities, and other utilities, and all rights and interests belonging th ereto, which are now or may
hereafter be owned or possessed by the City, including all salt or marsh or tidelands and structures thereon granted to
the City in trust by the State of California for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation. Section
706(4) of the Charter vests in the Board complete and exclusive power over ...that part of the City hereinafter defined
as the Port area, which Section 725 defines as the same area that existed immediately prior to the adoption of this
Section, as it has been defined by Charter and by ordinance, and as it may hereafter be altered by Council ordinance in
accordance with and upon the recommendation of the Board, or by amendment of this Charter.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-9

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

The Alameda County Homeless Base Conversion Collaborative. The Homeless

Collaborative is a non-profit collaborative of organizations that provides housing and services to
the homeless. Under federal BRAC law, base closure programs must include an
accommodation to recognized homeless providers. The OARB Reuse Plan commits to
providing a Homeless Assistance Accommodation through the Homeless Collaborative,
including providing for the following services: a workforce and business development campus, a
food bank, transitional housing, domestic violence support services, and a childcare facility.
Redevelopment as proposed would locate the entire program outside the project area.8

9
10
11

The Joint Apprentice and Training Committee. The Joint Apprentice and Training Committee
(JATC) is a non-profit educational organization expected to receive certain OARB property (3
acres) from the ORA for a job training facility.

12
13
14
15

The West Oakland Community Advisory Group. The WOCAG is community group
representing a broad range of interests in West Oakland. WOCAG advised the OBRA in
preparing the original, revised, and amended Reuse plans and continues to meet and provide
input on the redevelopment program.

16
17
18

Developers. Private or quasi-private sector developers, as well as public sector development

entities such as the City and Port, may implement specific projects (subsequent redevelopment
activities) within the project area.

19

3.2

20
21
22
23
24
25

BACKGROUND
This section describes closure and transfer of the OARB, the history and status of reuse
planning, and the history and status of redevelopment planning. The processes of base closure,
transfer, and reuse/redevelopment are complex and inter-dependent. Figure 3-4 illustrates
these processes and their general status. Figure 3-5 provides more detail regarding disposal
and transfer of OARB.

3.2.1

Base Closure, Transfer, and Reuse Planning

26

Base Closure and Transfer

27
28
29

During the late 1980s and the 1990s, the U.S. government closed and/or realigned (transferred
the functions of) numerous military facilities. Through the closure process, all or a portion of

Pursuant to a 1999 Legally Binding Agreement between, OBRA, ORA, and the Homeless Collaborative, OBRA and
ORA committed to provide low-cost leases to the Homeless Collaborative for eight buildings (approximately 229,000
square feet and 52 dwelling units) to be used as a workforce and business development campus, childcare facility,
transitional housing, and food bank. Subsequent to that agreement, however, BCDC requirements related to Port
Priority land uses at and near the Base necessitated OBRA to substantially revise the property disposition plan for the
OARB, and those eight buildings are no longer available for Homeless Collaborative long-term leasing. Therefore,
pursuant to the terms of the 1999 Legally Binding Agreement, the parties are currently negotiating alternative terms
and conditions to satisfy the homeless assistance component of the Reuse Plan.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-10

April 2002

Description
1

Insert (11x17 figure page 1)

Figure 3-4

OARB Reuse and Redevelopment Process

Public Review Draft

Page 3-11

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

Insert (11x17 figure page 2)

Figure 3-4

OARB Reuse and Redevelopment Process

Public Review Draft

Page 3-12

April 2002

Description
1

insert

Figure 3-5

OARB Property Conveyance

Public Review Draft

Page 3-13

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6

these military bases were then available to their respective local cities or counties for community
reuse. In this manner, local communities are able to re-capture the loss of jobs that occurred
when a base was closed. Planning for reuse of these bases generally occurs under the
guidance of an LRA, an entity established specifically for the purpose of planning transitional
and ultimate reuse, and managing the assets of the base during the military-to-community
transitional or interim period.

7
8
9
10

In 1995, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission recommended closure and
realignment of the OARB. In July 1995 the President of the United States approved the BRAC
Commissions recommendation, Congress reviewed the recommendation, and it became law on
September 28,1995.

11
12
13
14
15
16

The Army, the lead agency for base closure and transfer of OARB, first realigned the
approximately 430-acre Base, reserving 26 acres for the Reserves. The Army then began the
process of OARB disposal by screening requests for property. The Army plans to convey 384
acres to the OBRA and 15 acres to the EBRPD.9 The OBRA, in turn, plans to transfer the land
to the ORA; the ORA will transfer 241 acres to the Port (approximately 185 acres of upland and
56 acres of submerged land),10 and 3 acres to the JATC.

17
18

In its role as lead agency for OARB closure and disposal, the Army undertook several federal
planning processes, described below.

19
20
21
22
23

Federal Environmental Review. The Army prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ([NEPA], 42 United States Code [USC]
4231 et seq.). The EIS described the direct effects of its action, Base closure and disposal.
The EIS also described Base reuse as a secondary effect of disposal (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers [Corps] Draft EIS 1999; Supplemental Draft EIS 2001; Final EIS 2001).

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 as amended, ([CZMA], 16 USC 1451), in May 2001 the Army obtained BCDCs
agreement with the Armys consistency determination. The Army is responsible for ensuring that
federal development projects in the coastal zone, including projects such as the Army's closure
and transfer of the OARB, are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the California
Coastal Management Program (CCMP). In the San Francisco Bay area, two documents
embody the CCMP: the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan (BCDC 1998, as amended), which
incorporates the Seaport Plan (BCDC and MTC 1997, as amended). Therefore, the Army must
determine the proposed federal action is consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay and
Seaport plans. Because the Bay and Seaport plans initially designated the entire OARB as a
Port Priority Use area, the City and the Port of Oakland applied for an amendment to those

The Army will assign 15 acres to the Department of Interior who will transfer this acreage to the EBRPD.

10

As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the upland portion of the Base includes the approxi mately 9 acres to be acquired by
the Port from the Reserves.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-14

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

plans in September 2000. The amendment was designed to ensure that adequate acreage
would be devoted to meeting BCDCs year 2020 container throughput forecasts for the Port and
reserving sufficient property for the City to meet its goals of economic development and job
generation. The application for the plan amendments was approved by BCDC in January 2001.
After the Seaport and Bay plans were amended by BCDC to remove the port priority use
designation from the Gateway development area (see discussion regarding BCDC, above),
BCDC issued a letter concurring with the Army's consistency determination for the OARB
closure and transfer in May 2001.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

National Historic Preservation Act Consultation. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act ([NHPA], 16 USC 470 et seq.), the Army engaged in consultation
with the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) regarding historic resources on the Base.
Through the Section 106 consultation process, the Army must take into account the effect of its
undertaking on historic resources that are listed, or are eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). On December 11, 2001, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was executed between the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Army.
That MOU describes the Section 106 consultation process and its conclusions. The executed
MOU, to which the OBRA and the Port are concurring parties, signifies completion of the NHPA
Section 106 consultation.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
Section 7 ([ESA], 16 USC 1531 et seq.), the Army consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential
impact that disposal and reuse of the Base might have on listed species. The Army notified the
USFWS by letter dated August 3, 2000 that it intended to include the following restriction in the
property transfer document to ensure that potential impacts to the federally endangered
California least tern would be avoided: Prior to site development or other opening of the
property parcel known as the spit area (a parcel consisting of approximately 15 acres at the far
west end of the installation, south of and adjacent to the east end of the Oakland Bay Bridge)11
to public access or other reuse, the new owners will coordinate with and obtain approval of their
specific development plan for the property from the USFWS Endangered Species Office. In a
letter dated October 11, 2000, the USFWS concurred with the Armys determination that the
disposal and reuse of the Oakland Army Base are not likely to adversely affect least terns. In a
letter dated April 10, 2000, the NMFS determined the actions associated with the Armys
proposed disposal and reuse of the OARB have either been previously addressed, or will be
addressed in future Section 7 consultations.12

11

The area termed the spit by the USFWS is termed the Bay Bridge touchdown peninsula or the Gateway peninsula
in this document.

12

This correspondence is included in Appendix 4.12.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-15

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

Base Reuse Planning

2
3
4
5
6
7

Once the Base was slated for closure and transfer, OBRA was tasked with directing the OARB
reuse process. The OBRA governing body comprises representatives of the City, County, City
of Alameda, Congressperson Lees office, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and
adjacent jurisdictions. As the Local Reuse Authority under federal base closure law, the OBRA
is the agency eligible to manage the Base and its assets in the transitional period between base
closure and transfer, to accept the Base property from the Army, and to plan for its reuse.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Through a separate environmental review, after the OARB was closed in 1995, OBRA entered
into a master lease with the Army for the entire base that provided for continued use of the
existing facilities by various tenants (Interim Leasing Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, ER 98-13).13 As part of the reuse planning process, OBRA established the WOCAG
to examine reuse opportunities and recommend community reuse options for OBRAs
consideration. Interviews with Oakland residents began as early as 1996, and many meetings
were held to discuss the communitys vision of the reuse of the Base. The planning document
produced by the OBRA in consultation with WOCAG was the OARB Amended Draft Final
Reuse Plan (OBRA 1998, as amended through 2001). The Reuse Plan documents the
community reuse planning process and describes the proposed reuse development, including
land use classifications and development densities. The first draft Reuse Plan was issued in
1998, and the 2001 amended draft Reuse Plan reflects changes required for consistency with
the Bay and Seaport plans. Redevelopment of the Base pursuant to the Reuse Plan is intended
to accrue economic benefits to the Oakland citizenry.

22
23
24
25
26

Once the Army transfers ownership of the majority of OARB land to the OBRA, the OBRA will,
in turn, transfer the land to the ORA. The ORA will transfer the Port development area to the
Port, 3 acres to JATC, and will retain the Gateway development area. The ORA will then be
primarily responsible for redevelopment of the Gateway development area, and the Port will be
primarily responsible for redevelopment of the Port development area.

27

3.2.2

28
29
30
31
32
33

Redevelopment Planning
The City is the lead agency for CEQA. Immediately upon the BRAC Commissions
recommendation to close the OARB, the City began to evaluate how best to implement
community reuse of the Base and the surrounding areas. The City investigated redevelopment
options, designated a redevelopment survey area, and prepared a preliminary redevelopment
plan in September 1999. Conditions within the survey area were inventoried, conditions of blight
documented (see below, under Need), the survey area was refined, and the Oakland Army

13

During construction of the Bay Bridge Seismic Improvement Project (also termed the Bay Bridge Replacement
Project), Caltrans is expected to utilize western portions of the Gateway development area near Berth 7 for
construction staging. This use is similar in nature to ongoing water-oriented transportation-activities occurring in this
portion of the Base under the existing interim leasing program. Caltrans would complete its use of Base lands prior to
the end of the redevelopment build-out period, and its interim us e of OARB property is not expected to affect
redevelopment as proposed.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-16

April 2002

Description
1
2

Base Preliminary Redevelopment Plan prepared (City of Oakland 1999). The Preliminary
Redevelopment Plan accomplishes the following:

describes boundaries of the survey area;

4
5

provides a general statement regarding proposed land uses and densities, major
transportation infrastructure, and development standards for the survey area;

6
7

demonstrates how redevelopment of the survey area would accomplish the intent of the
California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL);

8
9

demonstrates how proposed redevelopment of the survey area conforms to the Oakland
General Plan; and

10

generally describes the impact of survey area redevelopment on nearby residents.

11
12
13

Based on the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan, a final project area was defined and a final
redevelopment plan and supporting documentation prepared (Hausrath Economics Group
[HEG] 2000; City of Oakland 2000).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

On July 11, 2000, the City adopted and approved, via Ordinance No. 12259 C.M.S., the
Redevelopment Plan for the Oakland Base Redevelopment Project (City of Oakland 2000), and
established a redevelopment project area. The Redevelopment Plan provides the ORAthe
agency primarily responsible for the project areas redevelopmentwith powers, duties, and
obligations to implement and further a program of redevelopment, rehabilitation, and
revitalization of the project area as broadly defined in the plan. The Redevelopment Plan
incorporates the Reuse Plan, as it may be amended from time to time. The City may amend the
Redevelopment Plan after certification of this EIR.

22
23
24
25
26

The Redevelopment Plan estimates build-out of the project area by 2020. With respect to the
Gateway development area and 16th/Wood sub-district, this long-term build-out horizon is
coupled with the need of the ORA to flexibly respond to fluctuating market and economic
conditions. These conditions necessarily require the Redevelopment Plan to be broad and
flexible. As the plan states:

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Because of the long-term nature of this Plan and the need to retain in the [ORA]
the flexibility to respond to market and economic conditions, developer interests,
and opportunities from time to time presented for redevelopment, this Plan does
not present a precise plan or establish specific projects for the redevelopment,
rehabilitation, and revitalization of any area within the project area, nor does this
Plan present specific proposals in an attempt to solve or alleviate the concerns
and problems of the community relating to the project area. Instead, this Plan
presents a process and a basic framework within which specific plans will be
presented, specific projects will be established, and specific solutions be
proposed and by which tools are provided to the [ORA] to fashion, develop, and
proceed with such specific plans, projects, and solutions.
Public Review Draft

Page 3-17

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

3.3

PURPOSE, NEED, AND OBJECTIVES

3.3.1

Purpose

3
4
5

The primary purpose of the proposed redevelopment is to alleviate physical and economic blight
in the project area resulting in part from closure of the OARB.
3.3.2

Need

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The West Oakland area of the City is an older urban center that historically supported maritimerelated industry associated with the Oakland waterfront, such as shipping, shipbuilding, and
goods processing. During World War II, the U.S. Navys Fleet and Industrial Supply Center,
Oakland (FISCO) and the OARB were established on the Oakland waterfront as maritime
staging points and supply depots supporting American armed forces operating in the Pacific
theater. In addition, during World War II, approximately a dozen shipyards operated along the
Oakland Estuary in or near West Oakland. West Oakland businesses supported the military,
and shipbuilding and shipping industries, and local residents provided labor. After World War II,
the need for military support by local civilians sharply declined. Along the Oakland Estuary, the
shipbuilding industry declined, while the cargo shipping industry increased, absorbing some, but
not all West Oakland maritime labor. The postWorld War II era initiated a gradual, but steady
state of economic decline in West Oakland. In the 1960s to 1970s, the shipping industry
worldwide, including Oaklands port, shifted from relatively labor-intensive bulk cargo to much
more labor-efficient containerized cargo methods (Minor 2000). With this shift, the economic
decline of West Oakland escalated, leaving in its wake outdated and outmoded industrial
facilities and a poor mix of incompatible industrial, business, and residential land uses.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Compounding this decline was closure of the OARB by Congress in 1995. The Base is primarily
a World War IIera facility, with a relatively high percentage of temporary buildings, as well as
obsolete structures and antiquated utility systems. Moreover, the majority of the site is located
on fill, and settlement of underlying strata has further stressed structures and utility systems.
The closure of the OARB poses a substantial burden to the local West Oakland community,
already characterized as economically depressed.

28
29
30
31
32
33

Pursuant to Californias Community Redevelopment Law (HSC 33000 et seq.), the City
conducted a detailed analysis of the current and expected conditions of decline and blight in
West Oakland. The results of this study are documented in the Report to City Council: Oakland
Army Base Redevelopment Project (herein Report to City Council) (HEG 2000). Chapter 4 of
the Report to City Council describes blight within each of the three redevelopment subdistricts.14

14

Chapter 4 and Appendix B of the Report to City Council, herein summarized and incorporated by reference pursuant
to PRC Section 21061, provides substantial written and photographic evidence of existing blighted conditions in the
project area. The report is available for review at 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3330, during regular business hours.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-18

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5
6

Pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, a military base must meet a two-pronged test to
be considered blighted (HSC 33492.10(a), 33492.11). First, the blighted conditions cannot
reasonably be expected to be alleviated in the absence of redevelopment. Second, the military
base must satisfy two of seven criteria regarding physical blight. According to the Report to City
Council, the OARB redevelopment sub-district meets the first test, and also meets or exceeds
all seven criteria of the second test, including the following:

unsafe or unhealthy buildings;

obstacles to economically viable reuse;

adjacent to or nearby incompatible land uses;

10

non-conformance with subdivision, zoning, or planning regulations;

11

infrastructure that does not meet existing standards;

12

buildings that, when built, did not conform to codes; and

13

materials or facilities that need to be removed.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Furthermore, under Community Redevelopment Law, non-military areas related to a base

closure must meet a four-pronged test of blight (HSC 33492.10(b), 33030, and 33031). First,
an area must be predominantly urbanized, and the blighted conditions cannot reasonably be
expected to be alleviated in the absence of redevelopment. Second, the area must have
inadequate public improvements, parking, or utilities. Third, the area must be necessary for the
effective redevelopment of the related military base. Finally, the area must satisfy one or more
criteria regarding physical blight and one or more criteria of economic blight. According to the
Report to City Council, the Maritime and 16th/Wood sub-districts met the first three tests, and
met or exceeded criteria of the fourth test, including the criteria shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Criteria for Physical and Economic Blight
Applied to Following Sub-District
per Report to City Council
th
Maritime
16 /Wood

Criteria Establishing Blight

Physical Blight
Unsafe or unhealthy buildings
Obstacles to economically viable use of buildings or lots

U
U

Adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses

Lots in multiple ownership of irregular form and shape and
inadequate size for proper usefulness
Economic Blight
Depreciated or stagnant property values or imp aired
investments
Non-conformance with subdivision, zoning, or planning
regulations

Public Review Draft

Page 3-19

U
U
U
U

U
April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

Table 3-2
Criteria for Physical and Economic Blight
Applied to Following Sub-District
per Report to City Council
Criteria Establishing Blight
regulations
Infrastructure that does not meet existing standards
Buildings that, when built, did not conform to codes
Materials or facilities that need to be removed
Abnormally high business vacancies or low lease rates, high
turnover, abandoned buildings, excessive vacant lots within
an area developed for urban use, and served with utilities
High crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public
safety and welfare

th

Maritime

16 /Wood

U
U
U

U
U
U

Source: Report to City Council: Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Project (HEG, 2000).

1
Within the OARB and 16th/Wood sub-districts, conditions of blight are widespread. Generally,
within the Maritime sub-district, conditions of physical blight were concentrated at the former
FISCO site, at the time the Redevelopment Plan was drafted. This site is currently undergoing
redevelopment under previously certified environmental review (Port of Oakland 1998 and 1999;
Corps and Port of Oakland 1998) and construction is nearly complete. Details of ongoing and
future Port facility modernization in the Maritime District evolve on a facility-by-facility basis, and
the modernization of each specific facility has been and will continue to be implemented by and
under the control of the Port under separate project-level approval and environmental review.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

3.3.3

Objectives
In developing the Redevelopment Plan, the City identified objectives for redevelopment of the
entire project area. In addition, through the OARB base reuse planning process, the City and
community collaboratively identified additional objectives for redevelopment of the OARB,
especially the Citys Gateway development area. The Port has also identified objectives specific
to the Port development area and Maritime sub-district, as shown in Table 3-3.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-20

April 2002

Description
Table 3-3
Redevelopment Objectives
Applies to the Following
Gateway
development
area

Maritime subdistrict and Port

development area

16 /Wood
sub-district

Alleviate economic and social degradation

due to closure of OARB

Eliminate blighting influences

Create a vibrant and balanced land use

pattern

Strengthen the economic base

U
U

U
U

U
U

Objective

Allow for sustainable job creation

Expand, improve, and preserve
low/moderate-income housing.
Provide for high-quality public/community
services
Provide for safe, efficient, and effective
movement of people and goods
Protect, preserve, and enhance
environmental resources
Minimize waste generation, maximize
reuse/recycling.
Accommodate the Ports share of regional
cargo throughput in 2020
Respond to trends and requirements of
maritime shipping
Increase Port productivity and efficiency
Provide sufficient capacity to substitute for
other West Coast gateway ports in the event
of natural disaster or other emergency
Keep competitive with other West Coast
ports

th

U
U
U
U
U

Source: Staff Report to the Oakland City Planning Commission (September 19, 2001; Case File No. DET01-06,
ER01-035), included in Appendix 1 of this EIR.

1
2
3
4
5

In order to achieve district-wide redevelopment goals, all sub-districts require investment in

infrastructure and improvement of investment potential. In addition, in the OARB and 16th/Wood
sub-districts, substantial construction, or demolition followed by re-construction will also be
required.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-21

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

3.4

LOCATION

2
3
4
5
6

The project area encompasses approximately 1,800 acres in western Oakland, partially along
the eastern shoreline of San Francisco Bay (Figures 1-1 and 3-1). This is the westernmost
portion of West Oakland. The project area is located approximately two miles west of the central
business district. The project area is roughly L-shaped. It is located adjacent to several regional
transportation links, as well as to the Bay. The project area is bounded by the following:

7
8
9

To the north is Interstate 80 (I-80), and the Bay Bridge touchdown (where the bridge meets
land, located on a peninsula into the Bay also called the Gateway peninsula) and toll
plaza; beyond is the Bay.

10
11
12
13
14

To the northeast is the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Main Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP), a large, region-serving industrial sewage treatment facility.
Beyond the WWTP is the MacArthur maze (the interchange of I-80, I-580, and I-880), and
farther beyond is the City of Emeryville. To the southeast is the Union Pacific (UP)
intermodal railyard and Jack London Square.

15
16

To the south is the Inner Harbor of the Oakland Estuary; beyond is Alameda Point, another
closed military installation.

17

To the west are Oaklands Middle and Outer harbors; beyond is the Bay.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The OARB sub-district encompasses approximately 470 acres. This sub-district encompasses
approximately 430 acres of OARB (both the land and submerged portions of the Base, including
on-Base lands currently owned by the Reserves) plus several parcels immediately adjacent to
the northern boundary of OARB, between the Base and I-80, totaling approximately 39 acres. It
is bounded by (clockwise from north) the Bay Bridge, I-880, the Port of Oakland, and the Bay.
This sub-district comprises two development areas: the 228-acre Gateway development area is
the northwest portion of the sub-district; the 241-acre Port development area is in the west and
southeast portion.

26
27
28
29
30
31
32

The Maritime sub-district encompasses approximately 1,290 acres. The majority of this subdistrict comprises that portion of the Port of Oakland dedicated to maritime use from the Outer
Harbor on the west to and including Howard Terminal on the east (including Schnitzer Steel, a
non-Port property), and from the Inner Harbor on the south to Berth 10 on the north. The
Maritime sub-district includes the existing marine cargo terminals, the Joint Intermodal Terminal
(JIT) rail facility, marine terminals recently constructed or under construction at Berths 57-59,
and the Middle Harbor Shoreline Park, also under construction.15 It abuts, but does not include,

15

Berths 55-59, including the Middle Harbor Shoreline Park and the JIT, are elements of the Ports Vision 2000
program. Impacts of their construction and operation were disclosed in a certified EIR (Berths 55-58 Project EIR, Port
of Oakland, Draft EIR 1998; Final EIR 1999; SCH No. 97102076). This program is intended to provide modern marine
and rail facilities to transport containerized cargo between foreignpredominantly Asian Pacificports and
destinations throughout the United States. The program also provides a new regional waterfront park, and substantial
new public Bay access. The projects comprising the Vision 2000 Program were approved in 1999. Portions of those
projects have been completed and are currently in operation; construction of the remaining portions is in progress.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-22

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5

Jack London Square and the Union Pacific Railroad Desert yard. This sub-district also includes
areas not under the Ports ownership, including a portion of I-880 and its frontage road,
Schnitzer Steel, miscellaneous parcels near 2nd and 3rd streets, and miscellaneous parcels east
of I-880 between Wood Street, West Grand Avenue, and 26th Street. The area outside the Ports
ownership within this sub-district totals approximately 192 acres.

6
7
8
9
10

The 16th/Wood sub-district encompasses approximately 41 acres. This sub-district is located

roughly between the realigned Cypress Freeway (I-880) to the west and Wood Street to the
east, West Grand Avenue to the north and 7th Street to the south. The area includes the old
Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) station (also known as the Amtrak station), as well as the
Phoenix Iron Works site.

11

3.5

12
13
14
15
16
17

PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS

The project area is urbanized, with some vacant parcels that at one time were industrialized.
The project area, including each sub-district, also contains some parcels that are contaminated,
and/or are listed on the Cortese List. The following discussion focuses on the project areas
physical characteristics. Section 4.1: Consistency with Plans and Policies, and Section 4.2:
Land Use, describe the planning and policy characteristics/context of the project area.

3.5.1

OARB Sub-District

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

With the exception of approximately 12 acres at the Gateway peninsula and several parcels
above West Grand Avenue, the OARB sub-district is developed. Its focus is transportationoriented, with highway operations and maintenance facilities, cargo container storage and
maintenance facilities, ship berths and terminals, rail yards, and large warehouses. A major
truck route, Maritime Street, runs southwest-northeast through the Base. Industrial
transportation uses dominate. An institutional multi-story, multi-winged Army administration
building (Building No. 1) is centrally located within this sub-district, along with other Army-related
transportation-supporting, residential, community services, recreation, and office uses. Some of
the buildings, including the large administration building, are in obvious disrepair.

27
28
29
30
31

The Gateway peninsula, located within the Gateway development area, is undeveloped land
traversed by both overhead and underground easements, and is used occasionally for
temporary storage. Two relatively small buildings exist at the peninsula: one is a Caltrans
building, the other is an EBMUD dechlorination facility. In general, however, the site remains
unused, and is fenced off from the remainder of the project area.

32
33
34
35

The miscellaneous parcels located within this sub-district but not within the Base are owned by
a variety of owners, but primarily the Port and Caltrans. These parcels are used for such
purposes as highway maintenance, container storage and materials storage, Port-related
trucking operations and other storage and temporary uses.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-23

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

3.5.2

Maritime Sub-District

2
3
4
5
6

The majority of this sub-district is an operating maritime cargo port, and it is dedicated almost
entirely to industrial transportation uses. The sub-district contains terminals with large waterfront
cranes and a variety of mobile and semi-mobile ground equipment, and railyards. Cargo
containers are stacked in the terminal yards. Large transport trucks are common on the streets
in this area, either actively moving cargo, or waiting in queues to enter the terminals.

7
8
9
10
11

The shoreline of the Middle Harbor is dedicated to public access. The 4.5-acre Port View Park
exists in the southwest shoreline of the 7th Street Terminal. The approximately 30-acre Middle
Harbor Shoreline Park is under construction, and will extend along the entire Middle Harbor
shoreline to join with Port View Park (Port of Oakland 1999). This sub-district encompasses
some inland areas not in port use.

12
13

One residential (loft) building is located within this sub-district on 2nd Street between Brush and
Castro streets.

14

3.5.3

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

16th/Wood Sub-District
This sub-district, historically dedicated to industrial uses, is now generally underutilized. The
large historic SPRR (Amtrak) station building remains, but is boarded up in a derelict state. Nonsmokestack industrial and light industrial uses, such as warehousing/distribution centers, waste
recycling facilities, and truck repair businesses are located in or adjacent to this sub-district, as
are miscellaneous businesses located in older buildings. While there are currently no residential
uses in this sub-district, such uses abut a portion of the project area, and others are directly
across Wood Street from the eastern boundary of the sub-district. A portion of this sub-district is
designated Port Priority Use pursuant to the Seaport Plan.

3.6

REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

24
25
26
27
28
29

Detailed information regarding redevelopment activities on specific parcels is, for the most part,
not yet available. However, information is available regarding amendment of General Plan land
use classifications and zoning, demolitions and site preparation, and major infrastructure
improvements. Furthermore, stable assumptions regarding overall redevelopment densities and
activities exist, and are sufficient for a general level of impact analysis and development of a
mitigation program.

30

The redevelopment program includes the following activities:

31

amendment of General Plan land use classifications and of zoning designations;

32

amendment of the Port area boundary;

33

approval of sub-district/development area-specific demolition, and site preparation;

Public Review Draft

Page 3-24

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4

remediation of environmental impairments, including the remediation of surface and

subsurface soil and groundwater contamination caused by prior releases of hazardous
materials and the abatement of environmental hazards from regulated building components
such as asbestos and lead-based paints;

installation, repair and/or improvements to major infrastructure; and

6
7
8

ultimate redevelopment, for which either the types of uses and maximum densities from the
Reuse Plan are assumed or, for the Port, achievement of projected cargo throughput
capacity as described in the amended Seaport Plan is assumed.

The following sources were used to develop information regarding proposed redevelopment:

10
11

Redevelopment Plan: for the entire project area, describes necessary major infrastructure
improvements.

12
13
14

OARB Reuse Plan (as amended): for the majority of the OARB sub-district, describes a
preferred reuse alternative, designating land uses and densities/intensities, and some major
infrastructure.

15
16
17
18

City/Port Application to BCDC for Amendment of the Bay and Seaport Plans and
BCDC Amendment to the Seaport Plan: generally describes proposed Port Priority land
use designations, necessary Bay fill, seaport facilities, and the Ports share of regional cargo
throughput in 2020.

19
20
21
22
23
24

Pre-Application Discussions: for the 16th/Wood sub-district, information from preapplication development meetings is included for approximately 23 acres proposed as the
Central Station. This redevelopment activity is in the conceptual planning stages, and no
application has been submitted to the City. For purposes of this environmental review, the
City has made conservative assumptions based on preliminary input. The City also made
assumptions regarding likely development in the remainder of the 16th/Wood sub-district.

25
26
27

EIR Scoping Comments: input received from community members, regulatory agencies,
and the Port of Oakland during the EIR scoping period identifies some potential
redevelopment elements and activities.16

28
29

Environmental Reports: Soil and groundwater investigative reports, as described in

Section 4.7: Hazardous Materials, and listed in Appendix 4.7.

30

3.6.1

Amendment of Land Use Classifications and Zoning Designations

31

General Plan Land Use Classifications

32
33

Figures 3-6a and 3-6b illustrate existing and proposed General Plan land use classifications for
the project area. Existing General Plan land use classifications primarily include Business Mix

16

See Staff Report to the Oakland City Planning Commission (September 19, 2001; Case File No. DET01-06, ER01035), included in Appendix 1 of this EIR. All written EIR scoping comments in their entirety, plus written
summarizations of verbal scoping comments are included in Appendix 1.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-25

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2

and General Industrial/Transportation. In addition, some shoreline areas along the Middle and
Outer harbors are classified Park & Urban Open Space (City of Oakland 1998).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The Business Mix classification is intended to create and enhance areas of the City that are
appropriate for a wide variety of business and related commercial and industrial establishments,
and it allows for flexibility in land use decisions. With Combining Zoning, live/work uses are
allowed on lands classified Business Mix. The General Industrial/Transportation classification is
intended to recognize, preserve, and utilize areas of the City for a variety of business and
related establishments that may have potential to create off-site impacts such as noise, light,
glare, truck traffic, and odor.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Under the Redevelopment Plan, no new land use classifications would be added to the project
area. The majority of the project area would retain its current classification, with some acreages
shifting between Business Mix and General Industrial/Transportation in the OARB sub-district.
In addition, some existing General Industrial/Transportation in the vicinity of the Bay Bridge and
the shoreline of the Gateway development area would be reclassified Park & Urban Open
Space. The City would amend land use classifications and zoning within the OARB sub-district
to allow for redevelopment as envisioned in the OARB Reuse Plan.

17

Zoning

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Currently, the entire project area is zoned Industrial (M). The OARB sub-district and the majority
of the Maritime sub-district are zoned M-40 (Heavy Industrial). Two areas of the Maritime subdistrict are zoned M-30 (General Industrial): immediately east of I-880 above West Grand
Avenue, and immediately west of I-880 along both sides of 7th Street. The majority of the
16th/Wood sub-district is zoned M-30, with a small area between 9th and 11th streets zoned M-20
(Light Industrial). The majority of the 16th/Wood sub-district is additionally zoned S-16
(Industrial-Residential Transition Combining Zone). The intent of this zoning overlay is to
provide a compatible transition between residential and industrial zones, including joint livingwork quarters. The S-16 Zone may be combined with any other zone that has a General Plan
land use classification of Business Mix or General Industrial/Transportation, and abuts a
residential zone, or with any industrial zone that abuts a residential zone (City of Oakland
Municipal Code 17.101.020).

30
31
32
33
34
35
36

The City is currently updating its zoning regulations to make them consistent with the General
Plan. This update process is expected to conclude in the near future. As part of this city-wide
zoning update, the City will re-zone the project area with new zoning designations that best
match the land use classifications of the Reuse Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. These
zoning designations would be consistent with the Business Mix and General
Industrial/Transportation land use classifications, allowing such uses as Office, Research and
Development, Warehouse/Distribution, and Light Industrial.

37

Public Review Draft

Page 3-26

April 2002

Description
1

insert (color)

Figure 3-6a

Existing Oakland General Plan Land Use Classifications

Public Review Draft

Page 3-27

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

Insert (color)

Figure 3-6b

Proposed Oakland General Plan Land Use Classifications

Public Review Draft

Page 3-28

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5
6

At such time as specific development projects within the project area are proposed, the City will
identify the appropriate new zoning designation for those uses. As part of the approval process
for these subsequent development projects, the City will consider rezoning actions as
determined necessary at that time. In all cases, the subsequent zoning actions shall only be
approved when determined consistent with the General Plan land use classifications as
described in the OARB Reuse Plan, and as discussed above.

7
8

In addition to zoning regulations, future proposed uses would have to take into consideration the
level of remediation and any associated land use restrictions.

3.6.2

OARB Sub-District: Gateway Development Area Redevelopment Activities

10

Demolition, Site Preparation, and Remediation

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The Gateway development area would generally be cleared for new construction. All
structures 17 would be demolished or de-constructed (de-construction consists of dismantling a
structure so that historic elements and materials such as large timbers can be reused), and
existing paving and concrete would be removed. Surface and subsurface contaminants would
be removed, or remediated as appropriate to comply with applicable federal, state, and local
requirements and processes discussed in Section 4.7: Hazardous Materials. Remediation
activities will include a variety of activities, ranging from subsurface excavation and removal of
impacted soils, to containment and removal of regulated building materials such as asbestos, to
ongoing soil and groundwater management programs to assure the protection of human health
and the environment. The area would be graded and drainage corrected. Approximately 1 acre
on the Gateway development area would be filled as required for construction of the Ports New
Berth 21 (see discussion in Section 3.6.4, below).

23

Transportation Improvements

24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Realignment and Extension of Maritime Street. To accommodate the Ports reuse of OARB,
existing Maritime Street (above 7th Street) would be realigned 400 to 600 feet to the east. In
order to accommodate this realignment, Maritime Street would also be extended along the
Gateway development area/Port development area boundary to connect with West Grand
Avenue at the current Wake Avenue intersection in a loop configuration. The City may reserve
some land within the Gateway development area for right-of-way to allow construction and
connection of the Maritime Street extension to West Grand Avenue.

31
32
33

Access Roadway. An access roadway would be constructed from realigned Maritime Street
through the center of the Gateway development area to the Gateway peninsula. For a portion of
its alignment, this roadway would constitute improvements to existing Burma Road.

34
35

Trails. As partial mitigation for impacts resulting from its construction of the relocated I-880
Freeway, Caltrans has committed to fund a bicycle/pedestrian spur trail from the vicinity of the
17

Wharf 7 and the majority of Wharf 6 would remain and be reused.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-29

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5

MacArthur maze (Bay Bridge Distribution Structure) along Burma Road to the Gateway
peninsula. Redevelopment would be designed in a manner that would not preclude Caltrans
from fulfilling its commitment. In addition, redevelopment would include a Class I spine trail
within the right-of-way of the new access road, connecting Maritime Street to the new spur trail
in Burma Road.

Utility Improvements

7
8
9
10
11
12

Storm Drainage. The OARB storm drain system in the Gateway development area is in
substantial disrepair due to age and settlement. Certain areas are subject to insufficient
drainage and contamination from storm event and dry season flows. Storm drain upgrades
would include replacement and/or rehabilitation of the existing system, and installing a network
of new storm drainpipes. In addition, manholes, inlets and outfall structures with backflow gates
would be replaced or repaired (EarthTech 2000).

13
14
15
16

Sanitary Sewer. It is anticipated that redevelopment of the Gateway development area would
require installation of new sewer infrastructure, including pipes, manholes, lift stations and
controls, and similar facilities. The existing EBMUD sewer outfall that passes through the
Gateway development area would be retained.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Water. Build-out of the Gateway development area would require construction of a new looped
water line system, including new fire hydrants and valves. Additionally, as part of its East
Bayshore Recycled Water Project, EBMUD intends to supply the Gateway development area
with high-quality reclaimed water for irrigation and possibly for industrial processes and
commercial applications, as appropriate. The impacts of the construction of the reclaimed water
system and use of reclaimed water were analyzed by EBMUD and are disclosed in the certified
project EIR (EBMUD 2001).

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Electrical. Overhead and underground electrical distribution systems exist throughout the
OARB. Existing OARB electrical facilities, however, are insufficient to serve future development
within the Gateway development area. Electrical upgrades include demolishing the existing
system; installing a new underground duct bank from the Ports 115 kV/12 kV (kilovolt) Davis
substation at Maritime and 7th streets to existing and new switchgear; replacing and upgrading
the area main switchgear; installing a new underground duct bank for the Hetch
Hetchy/Treasure Island 12 kV feeder; installing new underground electrical utility infrastructure;
and installing new 12 kV pad-mounded switchgear, as necessary (EarthTech 2000).

32
33

Natural Gas. A new natural gas system would be installed from the existing Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E) transmission line located on the south side of the Bay Bridge toll plaza.

34
35
36

Telecommunications. The telecommunication system presently serving the Gateway

development area is insufficient to support planned future development. New infrastructure
would be required to upgrade the systems capabilities, including installation of new distribution

Public Review Draft

Page 3-30

April 2002

Description
1
2

cables, feeder cables, switches, and connections to building mainframes. Existing fiber optics
feeding San Francisco must also be preserved.

3
4
5
6
7

Relocation of Utilities. As a result of the realignment of Maritime Street (see Section 3.6.3),
major infrastructure located in the right-of-way of that portion of Maritime Street would be
relocated, including 6-inch and 4-inch PG&E gas mains, overhead electric distribution lines,
EBMUD water lines, and City storm and sanitary sewer lines. It is anticipated that these utilities
would be relocated when Maritime Street is realigned.

Build-Out Projections

9
10
11

The Gateway development area would be redeveloped by the ORA to provide an attractive
entry to the City of Oakland, create significant new employment opportunities, and bring new
industry and business to the area.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Proposed land uses and development intensities for the Gateway development area are based
on the Flexible Alternative land use plan developed during preparation of the Reuse Plan. As
its name implies, this land use program is intended to provide the flexibility to balance economic
and community interests for the Gateway development area over time. The focus of
development within the Gateway development area would include light industrial, research and
development (R&D), and flex-office space uses, with business-serving retail space.18 In addition,
some warehousing and distribution facilities and ancillary maritime support facilities would be
located in this area. The Gateway development area also includes commitments for public
benefit uses (i.e., a park, job training, and possibly homeless assistance programs). No housing
is proposed within the Gateway development area. Actual development within the Gateway
development area may vary over time.

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Economic Development. Within the Gateway development area, approximately 165 acres may
be available for economic development opportunities, including certain lands owned by the Port
and Caltrans outside of the OARB but within the Gateway development area. According to the
Reuse Plan, the maximum anticipated development potential for this area is approximately
2,347,000 square feet of new flex uses, including light industrial, office, R&D, ancillary (and
possibly regional) retail, and warehouse/distribution. Based on gross land availability (including
land needed for future roadways, pedestrian circulation, utility easements, etc.), overall
development intensity for this area would be a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.35. (See Table 3-1.)

31
32
33
34

Park. The EBRPD has requested 15 acres of land from the Army located immediately south of
the Gateway peninsula for use as a public park. This park would be visible to eastbound
travelers on the Bay Bridge and would serve as the gateway to the City of Oakland. It is
currently referred to as the Gateway Park. The park would be accessible from Bay Trail spurs

18

Depending on market conditions, the City may elect to include high-end retail, regional-serving retail, and/or a hotel.
These uses are analyzed in Chapter 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Redevelopment Program.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-31

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5

constructed as part of both redevelopment and other activities 19 connecting to the waterfront, the
Bay Bridge, Maritime Street, and Shellmound Street (the latter in Emeryville). Additionally,
EBRPD is exploring the opportunity to acquire several additional non-OARB properties
(including 4 and possibly more acres in the immediate vicinity) that may be available for
expansion of this park.

6
7
8
9

A waterfront strip classified Urban Park & Open Space encompassing approximately 10 acres
would access, then parallel, the shoreline in the Gateway development area. In combination
with the park, this open space would provide maximum feasible public access consistent with
redevelopment of the project area.

10
11

Community/Civic. The JATC has requested 3 acres of OARB land for a job-training facility.
This organization provides job training in the building trades.

12
13
14
15

Additionally, although the preferred alternative is to locate the Homeless Assistance

Accommodation program run by the Homeless Collaborative outside of the project area, this
EIR examines alternatives that locate some or all of the program in the Gateway development
area (Chapter 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Redevelopment Program).

16
17
18
19

Ancillary Maritime Support. Approximately 15 acres of the Gateway development area would
be dedicated to truck parking, cargo storage, or other ancillary maritime support uses. Such
uses would be located in the northwest portion of the Gateway development area, generally at a
site known as the Baldwin Yard, north of West Grand Avenue and adjacent to I-80.

20

3.6.3

OARB Sub-District: Port Development Area Redevelopment Activities

21

Demolition, Site Preparation, and Remediation

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

The Port development area would be cleared for new construction. All existing structures would
be demolished or de-constructed, and existing paving and concrete would be removed. Surface
and subsurface contaminants would be removed or remediated as appropriate to comply with
applicable federal, state, and local requirements and processes described in Section 4.7:
Hazardous Materials. Implementation of the remediation program will commence following Base
conveyance, and be integrated, as feasible, with the Ports planned infrastructure improvements
and redevelopment activities. Additionally, the area would be graded and drainage would be
corrected.

30

Transportation Improvements

31
32

Realignment and Extension of Maritime Street. To accommodate 2020 cargo throughput

commitment of the Port, and operational characteristics of proposed rail facilities at the New

19

See Section 4.10: Recreation and Public Access, for a discussion of Caltrans requirements to construct Bay Trail
and other public access amenities resulting from BCDC permit conditions for the I-880 (Cypress Structure)
Replacement and Bay Bridge Replacement projects.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-32

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Intermodal Facility, existing Maritime Street (above 7th Street) would be realigned 400 to 600
feet to the east. In order to accommodate this realignment, Maritime Street would also be
extended along the Gateway development area/Port development area boundary to connect
with West Grand Avenue in a loop configuration. A portion of the loop would be located on the
Gateway development area. Realignment would require consolidation and reconfiguration of the
existing intersections of Maritime Street and of Maritime Street West with 7th Street. The
reconfigured intersection would be an at-grade four-way intersection. This would require
realignment of a portion of Maritime Street below 7th Street.

9
10
11
12
13

Trails. Design of realigned Maritime Street would include a Class I spine trail that would
connect to the existing Bay Trail spur along 7th Street, to the proposed spine along the Gateway
development area access road (see above), and to West Grand Avenue. This Bay Trail spine
would traverse a portion of the Maritime sub-district, as well as the Port development area of the
OARB sub-district.

14

Utility Improvements

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Storm Drainage. The OARB storm drain system in the Port development area is in substantial
disrepair. Certain areas are subject to insufficient drainage and contamination from storm event
and dry season flows. Storm drain upgrades would include replacement and/or rehabilitation of
the existing system, and installing a network of new storm drainpipes. In addition, manholes,
inlets and outfall structures with backflow gates would be replaced or repaired. Most runoff from
the Port development area would be collected by the newly constructed storm drain system and
would be conveyed to the Ports existing main pipelines (Port of Oakland 2002).

22
23
24

Sanitary Sewer. It is anticipated that redevelopment of the Port development area would
require installation of new sewer infrastructure, including pipes, manholes, lift stations and
controls, and similar facilities.

25
26
27
28
29
30

Water. Build-out of the Port development area would require construction of a new looped water
line system, including new fire hydrants and valves. Additionally, as part of its East Bayshore
Recycled Water Project, EBMUD intends to supply the Port development area with high-quality
reclaimed water for irrigation and possibly other uses, as appropriate. The impacts of the
construction of the reclaimed water system and use of reclaimed water were analyzed by
EBMUD and are disclosed in the certified project EIR (EBMUD 2001).

31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Electrical. Overhead and underground electrical distribution systems exist throughout the
OARB. Existing OARB electrical facilities, however, are insufficient to serve future development
within the Port development area. Electrical upgrades may include demolishing the existing
system; installing a new underground duct bank from the Ports Davis substation at Maritime
and 7th streets to new substations and switchgear; installing a new underground duct bank for
the Hetch Hetchy/Treasure Island feeder; installing new underground electrical utility
infrastructure; and providing necessary back-up power sources (Port of Oakland 2002).

Public Review Draft

Page 3-33

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4

Natural Gas. A new natural gas system would be installed from the existing Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E) transmission line located on the south side of the Bay Bridge toll plaza. New
PG&E natural gas main and distribution pipelines would be installed in realigned Maritime Street
and would extend to Port facilities (Port of Oakland 2002).

5
6
7

Telecommunications. The telecommunication system presently serving the Port development

area may be sufficient to support planned future development, but would require relocation.
Existing fiber optics feeding San Francisco would be preserved.

8
9
10
11

Relocation of Utilities. As a result of the realignment of Maritime Street, major infrastructure

located in the right-of-way of Maritime Street would be relocated, including 6-inch and 4-inch
PG&E gas mains, 12.47 kV overhead electric distribution lines, EBMUD water mains, and storm
and sewer pipelines. These utilities would be relocated when Maritime Street is realigned.

12

Build-Out Projections

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Relocation of Railyard Functions. The Port intends to improve efficiencies and geometrics of
its existing Joint Intermodal Terminal (JIT) rail facility, where cargo is transferred to and from
trains, by relocating the functions of that facility to the eastern portion of the OARB (including
the former Knight railyard) and portions of the Maritime sub-district immediately west of the
Union Pacific (UP) Desert railyard, which is located immediately west of I-880. This facility is
referred to as the New Intermodal Facility. Relocation and enhancement of the JITs functions
would result in longer, straighter track design, using land more efficiently than the existing JIT
and would be located adjacent and parallel to existing Union Pacific (UP) rail facilities.
Remediation associated with rail relocation is anticipated to occur in tandem with such
relocation. In addition, the New Intermodal Facility would allow for more efficient maritime use of
property closer to the marine terminals. Finally, the facility is expected to increase rail
efficiencies, allowing the Port to reach the Seaport Plans 2020 cargo throughput goals by
maximizing transport by trains, rather than by truck.

26
27
28

The New Intermodal Facility would consist of paved and unpaved ballasted surface areas, rails
and support infrastructure. Other related modifications to tail and support tracks would be
required south of 7th Street for optimal operation of the New Intermodal Facility.

29
30
31
32

Existing railroad tracks crossing over 7th Street located between Maritime Street and I-880
would be reconstructed to accommodate additional railroad tracks, and vehicular traffic parallel
to the tracks. In addition, existing 7th Street would be widened beneath the overcrossing railroad
tracks.

33
34
35
36

Temporary Ancillary Maritime Support. With realignment of Maritime Street, a strip of land of
approximately 44 acres would be located between the New Intermodal Facility and existing Port
Outer Harbor terminals. These lands are expected to be used in the interim for ancillary
maritime support (AMS) operations such as container storage, truck parking, warehousing, and

Public Review Draft

Page 3-34

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4

offices. Ultimately, this land is expected to be incorporated into one or more realigned and
expanded Port marine terminals.
3.6.4

Maritime Sub-District Redevelopment Activities

Demolition, Site Preparation, and Remediation

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Maritime sub-district activities related to OARB reuse would require demolition or deconstruction of two railroad structures, demolition of marginal wharves in the Outer Harbor, and
removal of existing paved surfaces. Surface and subsurface contaminants would be removed or
remediated as appropriate to comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements and
processes described in Section 4.7: Hazardous Materials. The area would be graded and
drainage corrected. Approximately 3 acres would be excavated and dredged to a depth of 50
feet mean lower low water (MLLW), removing about 250,000 cubic yards (CY) of material to
create new Bay surface. Approximately 2 million CY of fill would be deposited in the Outer
Harbor (currently at 42 feet MLLW) to create about 29 acres of new land, or fastland.

14

Transportation Improvements

15
16
17

Realignment and Extension of Maritime Street. A portion of the improvements to Maritime

Street discussed above are within the Maritime sub-district. Specifically, a portion of Maritime
Street below 7th Street would be realigned to create a single, four-way intersection.

18

Build-Out Projections

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

The Maritime sub-district encompasses existing and planned maritime, rail, and park facilities on
Port of Oakland property, plus miscellaneous right-of-way and other parcels not under Port
control. The Port development area (including submerged lands) will provide the Port with
approximately 240 additional acres. This would allow improvements in operations that are
expected to result in significant efficiencies in the movement of cargo. Consolidation and
realignment of areas not currently configured at peak geometry, plus modernizing
improvements, would allow the Port to meet its share of cargo throughput as described in the
Seaport Plan (BCDC and MTC 1982, as amended through 2001). Specifically, the Port has
estimated it would achieve 24.5 million annual metric tons of container cargo throughput by the
year 2020. This estimate served in part as the basis of an amendment to the Seaport Plan.
Proposed components of Port development, primarily in the Maritime sub-district, are generally
described below.

31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Expansion/Realignment of Maritime Facilities. The trend in terminal operations is to create

operational efficiencies through expansion of storage, or yard areas in marine cargo terminals.
This requires larger, fewer terminals, and consolidation of land areas. Another recent trend in
shipping and terminal operations is the proliferation of strategic alliances, whereby previously
highly competitive shippers have aligned with one another, exchanging equipment and sharing
ship space to increase efficiencies. Usually, alliances are created between firms located on
adjacent marine terminals. This physical proximity facilitates equipment and ship sharing. In
Public Review Draft

Page 3-35

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

order to further assist these alliances, better alignment of adjacent wharf faces between
terminals and flexibility in adjusting lease lines, fence lines, etc. is required. On an ongoing
basis, the Port intends to consolidate and realign terminals to increase efficiencies and support
alliances. Because all Port terminals have tenants, this action is accomplished as opportunities
present themselves. Information regarding such consolidation and realignment is, therefore,
conceptual, and subject to change. The Port does, however, intend to implement this policy until
terminals are configured to tenants preferences.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Partly using land freed from rail use by the relocation of the functions of the existing JIT, the
Port anticipates realignment of virtually all of its existing container terminal areas and expansion
of Berths 55-59. Through the realignment process, operational elements of adjacent terminals
are located to facilitate common use of ships, cargo handling equipment, etc. between
terminals. Such a shared arrangement can increase throughput for adjacent terminal operators,
and shippers delivering to more than one terminal in a single port. Realignment generally results
in fewer, larger terminals with greater upland area for more efficient cargo storage and transfer.
Terminal realignment and expansion would improve the efficiency of maritime operations and
provide capacity for cargo throughput expected in the Bay and Seaport plans. Information
regarding Port terminal realignment and expansion is evolving, and this EIR analyzes impacts to
the extent information is available regarding ultimate throughput as described in the City and
Port of Oaklands application to BCDC for a Seaport Plan amendment (City and Port of Oakland
2000).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

New Berth 21. The Port proposes to replace existing Outer Harbor Berths 21, 20, 10, 9, and 8
with a New Berth 21. To achieve an efficient terminal and berth geometry, reconfiguration of a
portion of the Outer Harbor shoreline, including both excavation and fill, would be necessary.
Approximately 3 acres of new Bay surface would be created by excavation, and 29 acres of new
land (fastland) would be created by fill (in part from the nearby excavation). These net 26
acres 20 of fill are the minimum necessary to achieve efficiencies required to meet the 2020 cargo
throughput projections as presented in the amended Seaport Plan (MTC and BCDC 1996, as
amended through 2001). By maximizing cargo throughput using former OARB lands, the Port
will eliminate the need for the previously planned Army and Bay Bridge marine terminals. The
elimination of these two facilities eliminates the need for 127 acres of Bay fill previously included
in the Seaport Plan.

32
33
34

Ancillary Maritime Support. The Port proposes to develop a Maritime Support Center (MSC)
for centralized AMS operations on 75 acres located in the vicinity of the existing JIT. The MSC
would house activities that directly facilitate the Ports container operations, such as container

20

Portions of areas slated for excavation and fill are located beneath marginal wharves along the shoreline of the
Oakland Outer Harbor, a situation termed covered fill. This covered fill would include approximately 1 acre within the
Gateway development area. The acreages of excavation and fill in this description do not take into account covered
fill, and are for the gross area of excavation and of fill. More precise quantities of cut and fill, including extent of
covered fill, would be developed prior to submittal of applications for fill to the BCDC, RWQCB and Corps.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-36

April 2002

Description
1
2

freight stations, truck parking, container/chassis repair, storage, trans-loading, related cargo
handling and distribution operations, and Port harbor maintenance functions.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

In addition, the Port and the City agreed in their application for Seaport and Bay Plan
amendments that the Port would provide an additional 15 acres of land near the Port area
designating AMS uses involving trucking (City and Port of Oakland 2001). In 2001 BCDC
amended the Bay and Seaport plans by Port Priority Use to approximately 11 acres of land in
the I-880 right-of-way under the elevated portion of the freeway, and approximately 10 acres of
land between the I-880 right-of-way and Wood Street, so that the Port could negotiate use of
these areas for AMS uses (BCDC 2001). Subsequently, the City has considered non-Port
Priority uses for land below West Grand Avenue between Wood Street and I-880. If, after further
property negotiations and redevelopment planning, the Port and the City identify alternative
site(s) for Port AMS uses, the Port and the City will seek a further Seaport Plan amendment to
designate a new Port Priority Use acreage and delete Port Priority Use from these identified
properties.

15

3.6.5

16th/Wood Sub-District Redevelopment Activities

16
17
18

Development of this sub-district as proposed would require removal of Port Priority Use
designation in portions of this area. Removal of that designation would require amendment of
the Bay and Seaport plans.

19

Demolition, Site Preparation, and Remediation

20
21
22
23

Redevelopment of the 16th/Wood sub-district may involve demolition of certain buildings,

although the historic SPRR (Amtrak) Station is not expected to undergo demolition. Surface and
subsurface contaminants would be removed or remediated as necessary to meet applicable
legal requirements. The area would be graded and drainage would be corrected.

24

Build-Out Projections

25
26
27

The 16th/Wood sub-district encompasses approximately 41 acres. It includes several sites that
have the potential for redevelopment opportunities, including the 23-acre SPRR (Amtrak) station
site and the 5-acre former Phoenix Ironworks site.

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Central Station. According to pre-application discussions with City staff, a developer has
presented a preliminary development concept, called Central Station, that would include
approximately 375 units of live/work space and approximately 1.4 million square feet of
commercial, office, R&D, and retail space (inclusive of the live/work units). This concept plan
includes restoration and reuse of the historic SPRR (Amtrak) station to include a community
event space and creation of a 1-acre park. This is a preliminary development concept that would
be generally analyzed in this EIR, and the concept plan may be altered or refined if subsequent,
specific project applications for this site are received by the City.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-37

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Other Development. Other development and redevelopment plans within the remainder of the
16th/Wood sub-district are not known. Some parcels are currently for sale, but no preapplications or applications are pending at the City. The EIR analysis assumes for purposes of
cumulative impact analysis, build-out of 305,000 square feet of light industrial uses on the
remaining parcels, which is consistent with the existing Business Mix land use classification
identified in the General Plan.
3.7

8
9
10

This section describes the characteristics and reasonably anticipated activities of project area
operation that could result in impacts to the environment.
3.7.1

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ACTIVITIES

Light Industrial
Light industrial uses are proposed for the OARB sub-district Gateway development area and the
16th/Wood sub-district. Light industrial development includes a wide variety of land uses related
to fabrication, processing, assembly, and non-smokestack manufacturing. These uses generally
require 10 contiguous developable acres or more and good access to interstate freeway or
other interstate transportation systems. Buildings are generally one to two stories. Utility system
reliability is critical, and utility demand may be moderate to high. Light industrial uses generate a
moderate amount of traffic, including truck traffic. Some light industrial uses may include
processes that generate air or water pollutants. Some warehousing or storage of product may
occur at the site. Hazardous materials may be transported to, stored, or used at light industrial
sites.

3.7.2

Office and Research and Development

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Office or R&D is proposed for the OARB sub-district Gateway development area and the
16th/Wood sub-district. Office development supports business, professional services, civic
administration, medical, as well as non-hazardous laboratory and non-assembly, non-hazardous
R&D uses. These uses generally require 25 contiguous acres or more to accommodate a multistory building and surface parking and excellent telecommunications facilities. Office
development should be located within 60 miles of a medium- to major-sized airport. Excellent
transit connections are preferred. Office uses generate a high volume of employee vehicle traffic
in peak commute hours. Minor amounts of routine hazardous materials (cleaning fluids,
lubricants, etc.) may be transported to, stored, or used at office sites.

31
32
33
34
35
36

R&D development includes data processing, laser technology, communications, medical or

biotechnology laboratories. In addition, R&D includes research, testing, design, development,
and training for technology-focused industries such as aerospace, telecommunications,
vehicles, satellites, medical, computers, electronics, and robotics. Assembly may occur on site
as well. These uses generally require 5 contiguous acres or more, good access to similar
facilities or a university (for access to workforce and to enhance technology transfer), and
Public Review Draft

Page 3-38

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5

technical equipment support services. Buildings are generally low profile, but may be multistory. R&D uses generate a moderate amount of traffic, most related to employees. Some
warehousing or storage of product may occur at the site. Hazardous materials may be
transported to, stored, or used at R&D sites.
3.7.3

Retail

6
7
8
9
10
11

Ancillary retail is proposed for the OARB sub-district Gateway development area and the
16th/Wood sub-district. This type of retail would support other uses at the site: restaurants for
area workers, copy shops, etc. Ancillary retail requires 1,000 to 5,000 square feet, adjacent offstreet parking, and access to a critical mass of customer base. Minor amounts of routine
hazardous materials (cleaning fluids, lubricants, etc.) may be transported to, stored, or used at
retail sites.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

The OARB sub-district Gateway development area may optionally include mid-sized, high-end
retail. Such a use would be intended to attract shoppers to the site. Mid-sized retail generally
requires 15 to 20 acres per store (including non-integrated parking), visibility from nearby major
transportation facilities, and outstanding automobile access for a critical mass of customers.
Buildings are two to five stories, and parking may be surface, or located in multi-story garages
adjacent to or integrated with the main structure. Regional retail generates substantial traffic:
employee and customer automobiles, delivery trucks, and trash haulers. Minor amounts of
routine hazardous materials (cleaning fluids, lubricants, etc.) may be transported to, stored, or
used at retail sites.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

3.7.4

Warehouse/Distribution
Warehouse/distribution is proposed for the OARB sub-district. Warehouse/distribution
development includes the short-term storage and transport of cargo. In the OARB sub-district,
this use is currently envisioned to be located above West Grand Avenue, on a parcel known as
the Subaru site. Warehouse/distribution centers are typically 250,000 or more square feet,
require 20 contiguous acres or more, and must have outstanding access to the interstate
freeway system. Access to additional interstate transportation systems is highly desirable.
Preferred nearby support services include trucking companies, mechanics, and janitorial
services. In order to achieve required internal clearances, buildings are at least 30 feet in height.
Warehouse/distribution facilities usually operate 24 hours per day and generate noise and air
emissions from transport trucks, ground equipment, and possibly trains. Traffic generation is
moderate; a high proportion is mid-sized and large trucks. Minor amounts of routine hazardous
materials (cleaning fluids, lubricants, etc.) may be transported to, stored, or used at warehouse
sites.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-39

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1

3.7.5

Community/Civic

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Community/civic use is proposed at the Gateway development area of the OARB sub-district. A
specific use slated for this area is the JATC job training facility. This facility is expected to have
the physical characteristics of, and operate much like, a light industrial land use. It may generate
minor amounts of employee and trainee automobile traffic, as well as minor amounts of truck
traffic. Job training would occur during regular business hours and could generate noise similar
to a construction site. Minor amounts of routine construction hazardous materials (cleaning
fluids, lubricants, fuels, paints, hydraulic fluids etc.) may be transported to, stored, and/or used
at community/civic use sites.

10
11
12
13

In addition to the JATC facility, this analysis assumes the job/business training and food bank
elements of the Homeless Collaborative program would occur in the Gateway development
area. The training component would have the characteristics of light industrial, and the food
bank would have the characteristics of warehouse/distribution land uses.

14
15
16
17
18

Community/civic use is also proposed for the 16th/Wood sub-district. Specifically, reuse of a
portion of the historic SPRR (Amtrak) station is proposed as an event center. Exact details of
the types of activities planned and the capacity of the facility are not yet stable and finite; but
this document assumes the center would not generate substantial traffic in the peak hour, but
would generate event-specific modest amounts of automobile traffic on a periodic basis.

19

3.7.6

Parks and Public Access

20
21
22
23
24
25

Interpretive/passive recreation park uses are proposed for the Gateway peninsula area of the
OARB sub-district Gateway development area, along the Gateway development area shoreline,
and a minor amount of urban park is proposed in the 16th/Wood sub-district. Parks require
regular maintenance (trash removal, landscape upkeep, etc.). Depending on their size, parks
generally generate very minor to minor amounts of routine, non-commute hour traffic. Parks that
have event facilities may generate sporadic substantial temporary event-related vehicular traffic.

26
27
28

Waterfront development, including parks, requires non-vehicular public Bay access for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Such public access generates essentially no vehicular traffic.
Activities include landscape and trail maintenance.

29

3.7.7

30
31
32
33

Maritime
Maritime use is proposed for the OARB sub-district Port development area as well as the
Maritime sub-district. Maritime development is fundamentally industrial; it is the movement of
cargo between water-dependent transportation and another mode of transportation (e.g., ship to
truck, train to ship, etc.).21 A marine terminal comprises a berth (the water area where ships

21

Almost all cargo that passes through the Port of Oakland is containerized. The amount of cargo, or throughput, is
described as either metric tons, orfor containerized cargoas a normalizing unit termed a twenty-foot equivalent
unit (TEU). On average, one container of cargo is equal to 1.75 TEUs.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-40

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

anchor), a wharf where cargo is transferred, a yard where cargo is stored, and a gate, where
trucks enter and exit the terminal. A marine terminal requires contiguous waterfront land with
direct access to the water, outstanding access to interstate roadways, and preferably,
outstanding access to interstate rail facilities. A two-story administration building and several
miscellaneous one-story buildings (e.g., repair shop, storage, etc.) are typical; large waterfront
cargo cranes and a variety of yard equipment are essential to terminal operation. Marine
terminal operations related to ships may occur at any time; off terminal truck activities occur
Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Operations can generate moderate amounts of
employee vehicle trips and substantial truck traffic; because terminals operate on the basis of
the shipping schedule, marine terminal traffic peaks may or may not correspond with other
traffic peaks. Operations generate air emissions related to ships, trucks, yard equipment, and
maintenance dredging; they also generate noise primarily related to transport trucks. During
operations, some container ships maintain stability by up-loading ballast water into internal
tanks, and as necessary, shifting ballast water internally and/or off-loading it. In this manner,
aquatic organisms from one part of the world may be introduced to another, although ocean
exchange of ballast water is required for ships that discharge ballast water at the Port of
Oakland. Minor amounts of routine hazardous materials (cleaning fluids, lubricants, etc.) may be
transported to, stored, or used at maritime use sites.
3.7.8

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

Ancillary Maritime Support

AMS uses are proposed for the OARB and Maritime sub-districts. Such uses may include a
variety of port-related transportation-supporting facilities, including and not limited to: truck
parking; container freight stations (packing and unpacking containers); container depots
(container repair, cleaning, and temporary storage);U.S. Customs inspections; and agricultural
inspection facilities. The facilities would attract moderate traffic, primarily truck. Since traffic
would be dependent on ship activity, marine terminal traffic peaks may or may not correspond
with other traffic peaks. Minor amounts of routine hazardous materials (cleaning fluids,
lubricants, etc.) may be transported to, stored, or used at ancillary maritime support facilities.

3.7.9

Rail
Rail use is proposed for the Port development area of the OARB sub-district. Rail development
is fundamentally industrial, and is the movement of cargo between rail-dependent transportation
and another mode (e.g., rail to truck, ship to train, etc.). A rail terminal comprises tracks, a yard
where cargo is stored, and a gate, where trucks enter and exit the terminal. An intermodal rail
yard handles mainly containerized freight. A rail terminal requires at least 75 acres of
contiguous land with access to interstate roadways, and access to other modes, such as ships.
A two-story administration building and several miscellaneous one-story buildings (e.g., repair
shop, storage, etc.) are typical; and a variety of yard equipment is essential to terminal
operation. Rail terminals may operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Operations can
generate moderate amounts of employee vehicle trips and substantial truck traffic; because
terminals operate on the basis of the rail and shipping schedules, rail terminal traffic peaks may

Public Review Draft

Page 3-41

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

or may not correspond with other traffic peaks. It should be noted that the truck trips generated
by intermodal rail facilities occur predominantly on Port property, because these truck trips
transport cargo between the rail facility and maritime facilities. Operations generate air
emissions related to trains, trucks, and yard equipment; they also generate noise primarily
related to trains and transport trucks. Routine hazardous materials (fuel, cleaning fluids,
lubricants, etc.) may be transported to, stored, or used at rail sites.
3.7.10 Live/work
Live/work, high-density residential-commercial use is proposed for a portion of the 16th/Wood
sub-district. Live/work land use usually requires excellent access to the arterial roadway system.
Preferred nearby land uses include subsistence shopping (food, fuel, etc.), entertainment
(restaurants), and community/civic services (transit, libraries, schools, hospitals, etc.). Buildings
are generally multi-story. Live/work generates noise from vehicles and outdoor human activity,
and air emissions from vehicles and in the winter from interior heating. Traffic generation from
commute automobiles may be substantial in the commute peak hours, although less than with
traditional high-density residential use.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

3.8

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ACTIVITIES

This section describes the characteristics and reasonably anticipated activities of project area
construction that could result in impacts to the environment. Chapter 4: Baseline and Setting,
Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR describes potential effects of construction,22 as well as best
management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially
reduce impacts of construction. These practices and measures would be made conditions of
project approval, or required to be made enforceable through contract specifications.
Construction is expected to occur on a parcel-by-parcel basis, from 2002 through 2020.

3.8.1

25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Demolition/Deconstruction and Removal/Remediation

All existing OARB and some Maritime sub-district structures would be demolished or deconstructed, and their foundations would be removed. As described in greater detail in Section
4.7: Hazardous Materials, regulated building components such as asbestos, electric
transformers, and lead-based paints, will be removed and disposed of pursuant to applicable
federal, state and local requirements. Additionally, surface and subsurface environmental
conditions will be remediated in accordance with applicable federal, state and local
requirements.

22

Throughout Chapter 4: Baseline and Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, construction includes
demolition/deconstruction, removal/remediation, grading, excavating and fill activities, as well as infrastructure
building and facility construction.

Public Review Draft

Page 3-42

April 2002

Description
1
2
3
4
5

Assuming all OARB structures are removed, approximately 3.7 million square feet of existing
structures would be demolished or de-constructed. The Army has identified some of these
structures as contributing to the Oakland Army Base Historic District See Section 4.6: Cultural
Resources.
3.8.2

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

In order to correct drainage, reduce the risk from flood or tsunami, and create sites
geometrically suitable for development, site grading and land surface fill would be required. In
addition, in order to develop a logical geometry for New Berth 21 in the Port development area
of the OARB sub-district and a small portion of the Gateway development area, the shoreline
would be reconfigured by filling 29 acres currently at a depth of 42 MLLW with approximately 2
million CY of material to create fastland, and excavating 3 acres to a depth of 50 feet MLLW to
create open water (a net fill of 26 acres). While the excavated material would likely be one
source of approximately 250,000 CY of the required fill, the source of the remaining
approximately 1.8 million CY of the fill is not currently identified. This analysis assumes that
material is imported from a location in the East Bay. It is estimated that approximately 90
percent of the fill material would arrive by barge, probably from maintenance dredging or from
the Bay Bridge reconstruction project, and that 10 percent would arrive by truck.
3.8.3

19
20
21
22

Grading, Excavation, and Fill

Infrastructure and Utilities

Infrastructure and utilities include realignment of Maritime Street and utilities located within its
right-of-way. Other roadway improvements and distribution utilities would be constructed as the
need arises.

3.8.4

Construction Scenario

23
24

Construction methods are expected to be industry standard, and importation of specialized

personnel from outside the region is not anticipated.

25
26
27
28
29

Because construction could occur over as much as 18 years, it is not practically possible to
know how many personnel would be required or pieces of construction equipment would
operate at any one time. It is, however, possible to broadly state that a combination of
earthmovers, pile-drivers, cranes, and other heavy equipment, as well as haul and delivery
trucks and personnel vehicles may be operating for months or years at a time.

30
31
32
33
34
35

This EIR includes a framework of BMPs and control measures for avoiding or mitigating
reasonably anticipated construction impacts. These BMPs and controls focus on noise, air
quality, traffic/parking, and water quality impacts; they rely in large part on policies and
standards of the relevant resource and regulatory agencies. Construction BMPs and control
measures are described as mitigation measures in Chapter 4: Setting and Baseline, Impacts,
and Mitigation.
Public Review Draft

Page 3-43

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

3.9

APPROVALS, PERMITS, AND CONSULTATIONS

Prior to undertaking demolition/deconstruction of structures, site preparation, or construction of
improvements identified in this chapter, the ORA, City and/or Port may be required to obtain
permits or approvals, or to engage in consultation with jurisdictional agencies. In addition, as
subsequent redevelopment activities proceed, they may require additional permits, approvals, or
consultations. Table 3-4 identifies potential discretionary regulatory requirements, and identifies
agencies that may rely on the contents of this EIR to inform their discretionary decision-making
process. This list may be modified from time to time, and the absence of an activity or an
agency from the list does not preclude its use of this EIR for purposes of granting permits or
approvals, or for engaging in consultation.
Table 3-4
Permit, Approval, or Consultation Processes that May Rely on the Contents of this EIR
Agency

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps)

Permit/Approval/Consultation
Regulatory Trigger
Federal

Section 404 (Clean Water Act) Permit

Bay fill
Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act)
Construction in Waters of the U.S.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

(USFWS)
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)

Section 7 (U.S. Endangered Species Act)

Consultation for effects to special status species
related to federally-permitted (Corps) action
Section 7 (U.S. Endangered Species Act)
Consultation for effects to special status anadromous
species related to federally-permitted (Corps) action
State/Regional

California Department of Fish and

Game (CDFG)

CEQA review

S.F. Bay Conservation and

Development Commission
(BCDC)

Development permit

Caltrans

Regional Water Quality Control

Board (RWQCB), Region 2

Public Review Draft

Effects to state-protected species

Fill or excavation in the shoreline band
Amendments to Seaport Plan Priority Port Uses
CEQA review
Effects to State transportation systems
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
(Waste Discharge Requirements [WDRs])
Effects to surface water quality from discharge of site
runoff
Page 3-44

April 2002

Description
Table 3-4
Permit, Approval, or Consultation Processes that May Rely on the Contents of this EIR
Agency

Permit/Approval/Consultation
Regulatory Trigger

General Permit
Construction on site of 3 or more acres
Clean Water Act 401 Certification for any Clean Water Act
404 permit
Tidelands Trust Agreement
State Lands Commission (SLC)

California Department of Toxic

Substances Control (DTSC)
East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD)
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD)

Approve exchange of Tidelands Trust to place Trust

on an area east of Maritime Street and remove Trust
from area west of Maritime Street
Approve Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and accompanying
Risk Management Plan (RMP), Consent Agreement,
FOSET, oversee post-compliance remediation
program
Accept property from Army
Approve subsequent redevelopment activities
Grant demolition permits, stationary source permits
Local

Adopt final Reuse Plan

Continue Interim Leasing Program
Approve acceptance of property from Army (including
execution of necessary agreements)
Obtain property from Reserves (including execution of
necessary agreements)
Approve transfer of property to ORA/City
Oakland Base Reuse Authority
(OBRA)

Approve a Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer, or

FOSET (including execution of necessary
agreements such as Consent Agreement and
Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement)
Secure environmental insurance for remediation program
implementation
Approve and execute Tidelands Trust Agreement for
exchange of Trust between properties

Public Review Draft

Page 3-45

April 2002

OARB Area Redevelopment EIR

Table 3-4
Permit, Approval, or Consultation Processes that May Rely on the Contents of this EIR
Agency

Permit/Approval/Consultation
Regulatory Trigger

Amend Redevelopment Plan

Amend General Plan
Re-zone
City of Oakland (City)

Approve amendment of Port area boundary

Approve infrastructure improvements
Issue demolition permits
Issue miscellaneous land use approvals
Amend Redevelopment Plan
Approve acceptance of the OARB property from OBRA
(including execution of necessary agreements)
Approve transfer of property to the Port

Oakland Redevelopment Agency

(ORA)

Approve infrastructure improvements

Approve and execute Disposition and Development
Agreement with Master Developer for the Gateway
development area and/or 16th/Wood sub-district
Implement redevelopment construction activities, including
but not limited to infrastructure and remediation
activities
Approve subsequent redevelopment activities
Recommend amendment of Port area boundary
Approve acceptance of property from OBRA (including
execution of related agreements)
Approve and execute Tidelands Trust Agreement for
exchange of Trust between properties

Port of Oakland (Port)

Waive reversionary rights to Gateway development area

property
Obtain property from the Reserves
Approve infrastructure improvements
Approve demolition permits
Approve subsequent redevelopment activities

2
3
Public Review Draft

Page 3-46

April 2002

EXHIBIT C

2012 OA K L A N D A R M Y B A SE PROJ EC T

I N I T I A L ST U DY / A DDEN DU M

May 2012

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

MAY 2012

2012 OAKLAND ARMY BASE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

services, including a bio-diesel fueling station, weighing stations, training and certification facilities,
maintenance facilities, and retail.
City North Gateway. Approximately 27.3 acres north of West Grand Avenue would be reserved
for up to 379,610 square feet of use for indoor recycling facilities. This area is not under negotiations
with Prologis/CCIG. In addition, approximately 7 acres would be provided for a truck parking area;
this area may include a fueling station, which may be biodiesel. It is anticipated that the operation of
this area would be integrated with the 10 acres of ancillary maritime services in the Central Gateway.
The recycling buildings would be large scale simple geometric structures. Flat or slight shed sloped
rooflines would be typical, with a 30- to 60-foot height limit. The recycling operations would be
industrial operations for the collection and processing of a variety of recyclable materials, including
metals. One of the facilities would include a remelting furnace for the melting of alloys.
City West Gateway Working Waterfront - Variant A. The working waterfront variant would
maintain the existing uses on the 34.1-acre area at the northwest edge of the site. Cargo would move
directly between ships and rail. Export cargo would consist of non-containerized bulk goods, and
inbound cargo would consist primarily of oversized or overweight cargo unable to be handled on
trucks, and thus transferred directly from ships to rail. This facility, called the Oakland Bulk and
Oversized Terminal, would operate on a 24 hour per day basis and is anticipated to handle up to six
50-car trainloads per day in each direction (for a total of 12 movements per day), plus occasional oneand two-car manifest moves. Specifically, the facility is anticipated to handle up to three unit trains
per day with each unit train being 6,400 feet long with 100 cars and is broken into two fifty-car
trainload sections of about 3,200 feet each, which are moved in/out of the West Gateway Marine
Terminal.
It is estimated that these volumes would serve one panamax vessel call per week. Modern panamax
designs are typically 950 feet in overall length and 65,000 to 80,000 deadweight tonnage in size. The
facility would be open twenty-four hours per day and employ up to an estimated 60 International
Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) dock workers. This area would continue to include storage
yards for both cargo containers and bulk goods, and surface parking. This variant would also include
the existing approximately 146,460 square-foot warehouse on Wharf 7. The warehouse is a large, 50foot tall rectangular structure with a slight shed sloped roof.
As part of the proposed project, the existing Wharves 7 and 6 (also known as Berths 7 and 8,
respectively) were evaluated to determine the extent of necessary repairs (and their associated cost)
for their continued use as a working waterfront.19,20 The wharves have deteriorated over the past 60
years; however, the studies have shown that with routine repair the structures can continue to support
the bulk shipping and rail uses.

19
Although the development team refers to the wharves by their historic nomenclature (wharf) and numbering, the
Port of Oakland refers to the Citys Wharves 7 and 6 as Berths 7 and 8, respectively.
20

Jacobs, 2010. Preliminary Conditions Assessment and Evaluation of Army Wharves 6 and 7. Prologis/CCIG has
selected Option 1/Limited Action is the proposed use and as such only repairs for safety and maintenance would be
required.

P:\COO1001 Gateway - Army Base\PRODUCTS\Initial Study\Public\Army Base Initial Study 052912.doc (5/29/2012)

30

EXHIBIT D

Attachment 7
Scope of Development for the Private Improvements
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the development of the Lease Property into a
new facility that supports the international, national, regional and local movement of goods by
way of the seaport, railroad and roadway networks. Once constructed, the Private hnprovements
will include the following uses:
A.
East Gateway: (The development of the following shall be subject to the
provisions of the applicable Ground Lease.)
Trade & Logistics Uses: Up to 442,560 square feet (at any permissible
FAR) of trade and logistics facilities (warehouse, distribution and related facilities), including,
but not limited to, general purpose warehouses, cold and refrigerated storage, container freight
stations, deconsolidation facilities, truck terminals, and regional distribution centers
(collectively, "EGW Trade & Logistics Uses").
1.

2.
Ancillary Uses: Developer also may develop and operate, as uses that are
ancillary and related to the EGW Trade & Logistics Uses, trailer and container cargo storage and
movement, chassis pools, open storage and open truck parking, and other ancillary uses ("EGW
Ancillary Uses").
3.
Conditional Uses: Trailer and container cargo storage and movement,
chassis pools, open storage and open truck parking (collectively, "EGW Conditional Uses");
provided, however, that EGW Conditional Uses may only be developed and operated
independent of EGW Trade & Logistics Uses on the continuing condition that, and for so long
as, Developer is in compliance with its obligations under the applicable Ground Lease.
4.
Support hnprovements.
Private circulation, utility and rail spur
improvements consistent with the Master Plan and ancillary and supplemental to the Public
Improvements constructed by the City (collectively, "EGW Support Improvements").
B.
Central Gateway: (The development of the following shall be subject to the
provisions ofthe applicable Ground Lease.)
1.
Trade & Logistics Uses: Up to 500,210 square feet (at any permissible
FAR) of trade and logistics facilities (warehouse, distribution and related facilities), including,
but not limited to, general purpose warehouses, cold and refrigerated storage, container freight
stations, deconsolidation facilities, truck terminals, and regional distribution centers
(collectively, "CGW Trade & Logistics Uses").

2.
Ancillary Uses: Developer also may develop and operate, as uses that are
ancillary and related to the CGW Trade & Logistics Uses, trailer and container cargo storage and
movement, chassis pools, open storage and open truck parking, and other ancillary uses ("CGW
Ancillary Uses").

Attachment 7-1

3.
Conditional Uses: Trailer and container cargo storage and movement,
chassis pools, open storage and open truck parking (collectively, "CGW Conditional Uses");
provided, however, that CGW Conditional Uses may only be developed and operated
independent of CGW Trade & Logistics Uses on the continuing condition that, and for so long
as, Developer is in compliance with its obligations under the applicable Ground Lease).
4.
Support Improvements.
Private circulation, utility and rail spur
improvements consistent with the Master Plan and ancillary and supplemental to the Public
Improvements constructed by the City (collectively, "CGW Support Improvements").
West Gateway: (The development of the following shall be subject to the
C.
provisions of the applicable Ground Lease.)
1.
Bulk Oversized Terminal: A ship-to-rail terminal designed for the export
of non-containerized bulk goods and import of oversized or overweight cargo ("Bulk Oversized
Terminal").
2.
Railroad Improvements: Railroad tracks and related equipment necessary
to adequately serve the Bulk Oversized Terminal as shown on the Master Plan. The Railroad
Improvements are subject to reduction if Caltrans approves only one (1) rail line pursuant to
Section 2.2.6.3 of the Agreement.

3.
Ancillary Uses: Developer also may develop and operate, as uses that are
ancillary and related to the Bulk Oversized Terminal and, trailer and container cargo storage and
movement, chassis pools, open storage and open truck parking, and other ancillary uses (the
"WGW Ancillary Uses").
4.
Developer Funded Wharf Improvements: If Developer elects to construct
the Developer Funded Wharf Improvements pursuant to Section 3.5.1 of the Agreement,
Developer shall also construct the Developer Funded Wharf Improvements as defined in the
Agreement.
5.
Conditional Uses: Trailer and container cargo storage and movement,
chassis pools, open storage and open truck parking (collectively, "WGW Conditional Uses");
provided, however, that WGW Conditional Uses may only be developed and operated
independent of Bulk Oversized Terminal on the continuing condition that, and for so long as,
Developer is in compliance with its obligations under the applicable Ground Lease.
6.
Support Improvements:
Private circulation, utility and rail spur
improvements consistent with the Master Plan and ancillary and supplemental to the Public
Improvements constructed by the City (collectively, "WGW Support Improvements").
D.

Number I

Billboards.

Billboard Location

Attachment 7-2

Size

Sides

Display
Type

Bay Bridge 300' East of Toll Plaza - South

Line, East & West Face

20'Hx
60'W

LED

Bay Bridge 800' East of Toll Plaza - South

Line, West Face

20'Hx

Backlit

1-880 West Grand 500' North of Maritime West Line, North & South Face

14'Hx
48'W

LED

1-880 West Grand South of Maritime - West

Line, North & South Face

14'Hx
48'W

Backlit

1-880 West Grand 600' South of MaritimeWest Line, North & South Face

14'Hx
48'W

LED

60'W

Notes:
Backlit Display: Static translucent sign lit from behind, traditionally has two ad faces
(front and back).
LED Display: Changeable digital sign comprised of LED bulbs, can have as many as 12
rotating digital ads.

Attachment 7-3

From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman <jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:47 PM
To: Farmer, Casey; Wald, Zachary; Bolotina, Olga; Jessica Yarnall Loarie;
Irene Gutierrez
Subject:
Follow up call on oakland coal exports
Hey Folks,
We'd like to schedule a follow up call with you with Sierra Club and Earthjustice attorneys. Can
we find a time to do so next week? Happy to find time to do in person (mornings are ideal) or on
the phone.
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: Farmer, Casey

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:49 AM
To: Eve-Fisher, Saundra D.
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Following up on Resolution (Opposition to Crude Oil coming through
Oakland)
Attachments: 85054 C.M.S (4).pdf
Hi Saundra,
Im following up on the requests for the City Administrator that were included in this resolution passed
in June 2015. The resolution authorized and directed the City Administrator to send our resolution & a
letter to a number of agencies and Im checking in to see if that has been done and to see if you could
point me to the staffer who was responsible for those tasks.
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: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 5:50 PM
To: Salinas, Victoria
Subject:
Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution question
Attachments: Fossil Fuel Divestment_Resolution_1394666_Final_Published_85053
C.M.S_Revised June 17, 2014.pdf
Hello Victoria :)
Hope all is well!
Do you know if we ever sent letters to all the entities listed in this resolution? I know it was before you
started working in Oakland, but would you be able to find out? I thought of it only because we talked
about the crude by rail reso just the other day.
Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix

PFiCt OF THE CfTV SLtHK

OAKLAND

14HAY 29 PHM53

CITY OF OAKLAND

CITY HALL - ONE FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA, 2"^ FLOOR - OAKLAND - CALIFORNIA 94612
D A N KALB

'

(sio) 238-7001
FAX (510) 238-6910
E-mail: dkalb@oaklandnet.com

Councilmember District 1

May 29, 2014

FINANCE & MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Oakland City Council
Oakland, CA
SUBJECT:
Resolution of the Oakland City Council (1) declaring a city policy prohibiting
the investment of city funds or holding any investment or ownership stake in
any companies that extract, produce, refine, burn or distribute fossil fuels, and
(2) directing the city administrator or his/her designee to examine the city's
holdings and future investments to assure that the city complies with this policy,
and (3) urging the governing boards of the Oakland municipal employees'
retirement system (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System
(PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)to
divest from all publicly-traded fossil fuel companies, and (4) urging other local
jurisdictions that intersect with Oakland to divest from all publicly-traded fossil
fuel companies, all in an effort to support the goals of the Oakland energy and
climate action plan and diminish the use of fossil fuels that significantly
contribute to climate change.
Chairperson Schaaf and Members of the Finance Committee:
SUMMARY

'

Authored by Councilmember Kalb, this proposed resolution will prohibit the City of Oakland from
holding in its investment portfolio any investments and/or any ownership stake in Fossil Fuel
companies^. The resolution directs the City Administrator to examine the City's current financial
holdings and divest from Fossil Fuel companies and to perform periodic review of the City's
investment portfolio to ensure ongoing compliance with the policy. The resolution also urges the
Oakland Municipal Employees' Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)

' For the purposes of this report and the resolution a "fossil fuel company" shall be defined as any publicly-traded company that
extracts, produces, refines, bums or distributes any fossil fuels and any company with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as
measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, 200 largest of which
are listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiative's "Unbumable Carbon" report, http://www.carbontracker.org/wp.
content/uploads/dovvnloads/2011 /07/Unbumable-Carbon-Full-rev2.pdf. Page 13
.^j
,,

Boards and other local and special districts jurisdictions' to adopt policies consistent with this
resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact of this policy will be negligible to none.
According to Katano Kasaine, City Treasury Manager, Oakland has extremely minimal investment,
if any, in fossil fuel companies so transaction costs associated with liquidating or divesting holdings
should be de minimus.
Staff already performs periodic audits of City's investments to comply with other socially
responsible investments policies. Very limited staff resources may be needed on an intermittent
basis for performing initial revisions of the current investment portfolio and providing
administrative support.
BACKGROUND/LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Oakland has been one of the leading cities in the United States in establishing progressive socially
and environmentally responsible investment policies. Over the years a number of sustainabilityrelated resolutions and ordinances were adopted in the City of Oakland". The following list
highlights some of the most relevant environmental policies for the adoption of this proposed
resolution:

The Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP)'" was adopted by the City Council on
December 4, 2012, it states that: "The combustion of fossil fuels used for transportation is
a major source of GHG emissions associated with Oakland... Other local air pollutants ,
linked to increased incidence of health problems such as asthma and cancer also
commonly result from use of transportation fuels. Addressing transportation emissions
presents a tremendous opportunity to simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and improve
the health of Oakland residents, while reducing dependence on foreign oil and local
vulnerability to energy price fluctuations."

Extended Producer Responsibility Resolution'^ Authorizing the City to pursue and support
statewide and local legislative and other initiatives to hold producers responsible for their
products and waste associated with them.

Oil Independent by 2020 Action Plan"

The plan was created by the Task Force that brought together members of diverse local,
state and national organizations. The plan concentrates on local measures to reduce oil
dependency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It did not address divestment which is
another tool to not only further Oakland's independence of fossil fuels, but also to
demonstrate solidarity with the new environmental divestment movement.

In the past Oakland also adopted several similar divestment policies, such as divestment from
nuclear weapons, tobacco, alcohol and manufacturers of firearms or ammunition.

ANALYSIS
Global and local harm from Fossil Fuels
Environmental and public health consequences from extracting, producing, refining, burning and
distributing fossil fuels is well-documented.
Virtually any activity involving fossil fuels not only contributes to the release of heat-trapping
emissions of greenhouse gases and subsequent global warming, but also pollutes water, air^', soil
and causes harm to humans^" and other species comprising the Earth's flora and fauna. Residents
of West and East Oakland experience firsthand the results of air pollution from burning and
transporting fossil fuels. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District report^'" on
the CARE program "West Oakland is one of the most impacted areas in the Bay Area..."
Besides pollution, Oakland, as a coastal city, should be keenly interested in curbing Global
Warming and its effects. Sea level rise is one of the other major affects of anthropogenic global
warming that will affect Oakland directly in the future'^
Affects of Divestment campaign:

f ^ *

One can argue'^ that even if a large percentage of American companies divested it wouldn't be
enough to create enough financial incentives for the major coal, oil and natural gas companies to '
change their behavior. Perhaps one of the most important and powerful affects of divestment is
the fact that it is shaping public opinion and attitudes, and eventually behaviors. "Divestment
won't do this by directly affecting share prices, at least in the short run these companies are the
richest enterprises in history. Instead, as the country's colleges, cities and denominations begin to
cut their ties, we'll start to revoke the social license of these firms. Many of the nation's elites sit
on college boards, forcing them to grapple with the fact that the fossil fuel industry is now an
outlaw against the laws of physics." Bill McKibben, founder of 350.orR said.^'
,*
In the long term, due to the mounting public pressure, consequent changes in policies and scarcity
of fossil fuels resources, investing in fossil fuel stocks may become progressively risky.
Social, political and financial pressure of the fossil fuel divestment movement can promote "redirecting investment to renewable energy alternatives that can trigger 'disruptive innovation' and
substitute fuels as a primary source of energy supply"'^". There are multiple reports'^'" that have
become available in the recent years on green investment providing cities^'^ and other institutions
with information and possible pathways to more sustainable financial portfolios.
For Oakland, it's not only important to exercise its right to divest, but also to urge other
municipalities and institutions to join the movement. The City has no direct control over the funds
of Oakland Municipal Employees' Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) or the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
Boards, which have retirement investment portfolios of approximately $4.5million^^
$454,193,847''''' and $292.4 billion""'' respectively. However, the Oakland City Council can
encourage those Retirement Boards to adopt similar divestment policies.
^
> '

The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) fund alone has approximately
10.7% or approximately $25 billion'^"'" of their investments in Fossil Fuel companies.
According to Bill McKibben "Divestment alone won't solve global warming nothing alone will.
But it's one powerful way to exert some leverage."''"'
OUTCOME
Investments not only protect financial resources, but also reflect values. Adoption of this
* ^
resolution will further demonstrate Oakland's strong stands for environmental and social
responsibility values. It will establish an express City policy not to support investments in any
private business entity having as their core practice the exploitation of Earth's resources and
pollution of the atmosphere and biosphere essential for human and other species survival. It will
also add Oakland to the list of more than twenty one cities and more than two hundred colleges
and universities in the United States that comprise a rapidly growing active movement to reduce
current dependence on fossil fuels and protect our planet and take an active stand to protect
present and future generations of human and other species from horrific and rapid extinctions.
Divesting from Fossil Fuel companies and industries will put social, political and economic pressure
on these entities and could move us closer to transitioning to alternative, clean energy recourses
for meeting our energy needs.

RECOMMENDATION
Councilmember Kalb recommends that the City Council adopt this Resolution.

Respectfiilly submitted,

"

Dan Kalb, Councilmember

Contact:
Department:

Olga Bolotina
Office of Dan Kalb, Councilmember, District 1

Telephone:

510-238-7240

Fax: 510-238-69130

'

email: obolotina@oaklandnet.com

/Aftorney>4ss/gnec/: Pelayo Llamas, Deputy City Attorney

cc: Fred Blackwell, City Administrator \ Henry Gardner, Interim City Administrator
Walter L. Johnson, President Police and Fire Retirement Board
William C. Russell, President Oakland Municipal Employees Retirement Board

AC Transit, BART, East Bay MUD, East Bay Regional Parks District, Peralta Community Colleges.

" Sustainability related resolutions and ordinances adopted in the City of Oakland,
, ^-- A-: ^ ^
http://www2.oaklandnet.conVGovernment/o/PWA/s/SO/OAK025298
. ' .: ! '\v' ; ^^ ^ ^'^^
Sustainability related resolutions and ordinances adopted in the City of Oakland,
http://www2.oaklandnet.eom/Govemment/o/PWA/s/SO/OAK039056
Resolution authorizing the city of Oakland to pursue and support statewide and local legislative and other initiatives to
hold producers responsible for product waste starting with products defined as universal waste,
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakcal/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak025374.pdf
,.
" Oil Independent Oakland Action Plan, 2008, http://www.ecocitybuilders.Org/wp-content/uploads/2010/l l/OIOActionPlan.pdf
^ The Sources and Solutions: Fossil Fuels, http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-fossil-fuels
^" Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Surface and Ground Water in a
Drilling- Dense Region, http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697
^" Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) report, 2014,
Page 5,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%2QResearch/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospe
ctive_April2014.ashx
"Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline", San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (SF BCDC), Page 31,
.
. -.^ f/
;
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf
" http://www.ihunewsletter.com/2012/12/06/divesting-stocks-is-the-wrong-strategy-46953/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/27/is-divestment-an-effective-means-of-protest/tuming-collegespartners-into-pariahs
Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel
assets? http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research/stranded-assets/SAP-divestment-report-final.pdf Page 17
Institutional Pathways to Fossil-Free Investing http://63 Ini lki9kl 1 gbkhx39b3qpzua.wpengine.netdnacdn.com/files/2013/06/institutional-pathways-final-061813.pdf
.
Beyond Fossil Fuels: The Investment Case for Fossil Fuel Divestment
https://s3.aiTiazonaws.com/s3.350.org/images/Impax20130704_white_paper_fossil_fuel_divestment_uk_final.pdf
A Complete Guide to Reinvestment https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.350.org/images/Reivestment_Guide.pdf
Resilient Portfolios & Fossil-Free Pensions https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.350.org/images/Resilient-Poi1folios-andFossi l-Free-Pensions-By H1 Pinvestor-GoFossilFree-vFinal-20130ct31 .pdf
Oakland Municipal Employees'Retirement System (OMERS) Annual report, 2013
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakcal/groups/fma/documents/report/oak046046.pdf Page 22
i,
Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) Annual Report Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2013
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakcal/groups/fma/documents/report/oak046045.pdf
""^'CalPERSCurrentlnvestmentFund Values, 5/22/2014,
'
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/investments/assets/mvs.xml
Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel
assets?
http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research/stranded-assets/SAP-divestment-report-final.pdf Page 59
http://www.nvtimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01 /27/is-divestment-an-effective-means-of-protest/turning-collegespartners-into-pariahs

... w . ;,V

hat is fossil fuel divestmllii:?

from the destruction of the planet. Divestment is a
tactic for fighting climate change.
W h y n o w ? A few years ago, global warming seemed like a distant threat.
Now, millions of people have witnessed climate disruption first hand in the
terrible droughts, floods, heat-waves, wildfires, and storms that have ravaged
much of the globe. Scientists warn us that we Ye reaching tipping points wheg
the system could spin out of control.
H e r e ' s t h e m a t h : if we're going to limit warming to 2*C. a goal that even
the most conservative governments in the world have agreed to meet, then we
can only burn 565 gigatons more of carbon dioxide. But the fossil fuel industry
has 2,765 gigatons of carbon in their reserves - nearly five times the safe
amount - and every day they're searching for more. Their business model is
incompatible with a livable climate.
,
,
W h y d i v e s t m e n t ? 1) Divestment is a proven tactic in highlighting
"iRe destructive practices of fossil fuel companies in the public arena; 2)
divesting from dirty energy is already generating market interest in creating
environmentally sustainable investments; and 3) divestment can help create
the political momentum we need to pass carbon-restrictive legislation.
W i l l I l o s e m o n e y if I d i v e s t ? No. Don't believe us? Many big
^
institutional investors are highlighting the increasing financial disincentives
for investing in fossil fuel companies and the increasing financial incentives %
for divesting portfolios of fossil fuels. Even Goldman Sachs, one of the most
establishment finance firms on Wall Street, is divesting from coal. ^J; '
^|

Divesting helps save the planet AND your mondy. if we're going
to have any chance of slowing down climate change, most fossil fuel reserves
will need to stay in the ground and investments based on those reserves will
lose their market value. This is called the "carbon bubble."

It's going|o take all of us to make a difference. We are excited

that dozens of cities, religious institutions, foundations, organizations and
thousands of activists have already divested or are in the process of doing so.
Start a campaign and join the movement:
,

www.gofossilfree.org

nrrici

tlLEl)

OF THE CITY CLLK*.

OAKLAND

"""^""'"OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No.

C.M.S.

INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER KALB

RESOLUTION OF THE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING A

CITY POLICY PROHIBITING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS OR
HOLDING ANY INVESTMENT OR OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ANY
COMPANIES THAT EXTRACT, PRODUCE, REFINE, BURN OR
DISTRIBUTE FOSSIL FUELS, AND (2) DIRECTING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE TO EXAMINE THE CITY'S
HOLDINGS AND FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ASSURE THAT THE
CITY COMPLIES WITH THIS POLICY, AND (3) URGING THE
GOVERNING
BOARDS
OF
THE
OAKLAND
MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (OMERS), THE OAKLAND
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PFRS) AND THE
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(CALPERS) TO DIVEST FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL
FUEL
COMPANIES,
AND
(4)
URGING
OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT INTERSECT WITH OAKLAND TO DIVEST
FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, ALL IN
AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE OAKLAND
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND DIMINISH THE USE OF
FOSSIL FUELS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE
WHEREAS, the climate crisis is a severe threat to current and future generations here
in Oakland and around the world; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report' found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of
human and natural systems throughout the world including the melting of Arctic ice, the
ocean's rise, increase in ocean's acidity, flooding and drought, and the IPCC Fifth
Assessment reports further indicate that global warming is proceeding at a faster pace
than had been previously thought; and
WHEREAS, these extreme events have and will continue to negatively impact the U.S.
economy. In 2012, the United States accounted for 67% of the $160 billion lost globally
due to natural catastrophes"; and
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed through the 2009
Copenhagen Accord that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise would be hazardous.

1394666.2

and that if humans release only about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere this limit will be not possible to maintain; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this resolution, a "fossil fuel company" shall be defined
as any publicly-traded company that extracts, produces, refines, burns or distributes any
fossil fuels and any company with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured
by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted
and burned, 200 largest of which are listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiative's
"Unburnable Carbon" report'"; and
WHEREAS, in its "Unburnable Carbon" report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that
fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release
approximately 2,795 gigatons of C 0 2 if they are burned, which is five times the amount
that can be released without exceeding 2C of warming; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere Earth's climate
is changing drastically and the Arctic snowcap and Antarctic glaciers are melting much
faster than previously estimated and climate change is occurring much faster and likely
to affect each human being presently living on the Planet,'^ and
WHEREAS, the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan found that combustion of
fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
Oakland, as well as throughout California and projected local impacts of climate change
caused by GHG emissions include rising Bay and delta waters, increased vulnerability
to flood events, decreased potable water supply due to shrinking Sierra snowpack,
increased fire danger, more extreme heat events and public health impacts, added
stress on infrastructure, higher prices for food and fuels, and other ecological and
quality of life impacts; and current dependence on fossil fuels not only creates heattrapping GHG emissions, but imposes other risks associate with energy security,
environmental impacts (e.g., recent Gulf oil spill), and vulnerability to energy price
volatility, and^
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has no current investments, other than possible
inadvertent de minimus amounts, in fossil fuel companies and has a history of
successfully prohibiting investments in entities that produce outcomes that are harmful
to civilizationsOakland successfully divested from South Africa in 1985 and Burma in
1996 to make a stand against human rights abuses; and companies involved in
Tobacco, Nuclear, and Firearms and Ammunition production to make a stand for the
health and wellbeing of the residents of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Oakland believe that investments should support a future
where all people can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming
climate; and,
WHEREAS, at least twenty-one cities in the United States have committed to freeze
fossil fuel investment and more than two hundred colleges and universities in the United

1394666.2

states have launched campaigns to have their institutions divest from fossil fuel
companies; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby declares that it is the policy of the City of
Oakland to have no financial holdings or investments, other than an inadvertent de
minimus amount defined as less than one percent in any given investment instrument,
in any Fossil Fuel Company, as defined, but not limited to above, (that extracts,
produces, refines, burns or distributes fossil fuels, and any company with the largest
coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be
emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned), be it through the direct purchase
of commercial paper, a medium term note (corporate bond), ownership of stock,
ownership of mutual funds shares, investment in a private equity fund owning the stock,
or through any other instrument, securities, or other financial obligations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall, to the
extent practicable, examine the City's financial holdings and future investments to
assure that the City complies with this City policy by no later than July, 2015 and
periodically beyond; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That if a money market fund has security holdings at or
exceeding 1% in fossil fuel companies, the City will begin to divest out of that money
market fund and be fully divested within one year; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accord with Charter Section 504, the City
Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain compliance with this policy, by
effective methods such as monitoring the financial security holdings of the City's money
market funds and periodic review of the list of publicly-traded companies that extracts,
produces, refines, burns or distributes fossil fuels and companies with the largest coal,
oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be
emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, as listed in the Carbon Tracker
Initiative's "Unburnable Carbon" report; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall provide
the Council periodic updates, available to the public, detailing progress made towards
compliance with full divestment; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City urges the governing boards of the Oakland
Municipal Employees' Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS) to adopt a similar policy and to divest from fossil fuel companies; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City of Oakland urges other local jurisdictions that
geographically intersect with Oakland to divest from and prohibit future investment of
their respective public funds in fossil fuel companies; and be it

1394666.2

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall
prepare a report to the Council by no later than July, 2015 that outlines options for
investing City funds in a socially responsible manner that further maximizes the positive
impact of public funds by seeking out investment opportunities that limit and help to
mitigate effects of burning fossil fuels, including, but not limited to, clean technology,
renewable energy, sustainable companies or projects, and sustainable communities,
etc.; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is directed to fonA/ard a copy of this
enacted Resolution to the governing boards of OMERS, PFRS and the CalPERS, and
to the elected governing boards of special district jurisdictions^' that intersect with
Oakland, and to state legislative elected officials representing Oakland.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF. AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOESABSENTABSTENTIONATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

' http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4 syr.pdf

" Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report Impact Forecasting 2012
http://thoughtIeadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20130124 if annual global climate catastrophe rep
ortpdf
http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Fullrev2.pdf. Page 13

V
' http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp;
http://www, epa. gov/climatechange/science/future.html
" http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca 1 /groups/pwa/documents/report/oak039056.pdf: Page 4, 23
and 58
^ AC Transit, BART, East Bay MUD, East Bay Regional Parks District, Peralta Community Colleges,

1394666.2

Revised June 17, 2014

Approved as to Form and Legality
________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No. ____________________C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER KALB

RESOLUTION OF THE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING A

CITY POLICY PROHIBITING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS OR
HOLDING ANY INVESTMENT OR OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ANY
COMPANIES THAT EXTRACT, PRODUCE, REFINE, BURN OR
DISTRIBUTE FOSSIL FUELS, AND (2) DIRECTING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE TO EXAMINE THE CITYS
HOLDINGS AND FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ASSURE THAT THE
CITY COMPLIES WITH THIS POLICY, AND (3) URGING THE
GOVERNING
BOARDS
OF
THE
OAKLAND
MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (OMERS), THE OAKLAND
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PFRS) AND THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(CALPERS) TO DIVEST FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL
FUEL COMPANIES, AND
(4) URGING OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT INTERSECT WITH OAKLAND TO DIVEST
FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, ALL IN
AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE OAKLAND
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND DIMINISH THE USE OF
FOSSIL FUELS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE
WHEREAS, the climate crisis is a severe threat to current and future generations here
in Oakland and around the world; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report i found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of
human and natural systems throughout the world including the melting of Arctic ice, the
oceans rise, increase in oceans acidity, flooding and drought, and the IPCC Fifth
Assessment reports further indicate that global warming is proceeding at a faster pace
than had been previously thought; and
WHEREAS, these extreme events have and will continue to negatively impact the U.S.
economy. In 2012, the United States accounted for 67% of the $160 billion lost globally
due to natural catastrophes ii; and
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed through the 2009
Copenhagen Accord that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise would be hazardous,

1394666.3

and that if humans release only about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere this limit will be not possible to maintain; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this resolution, a fossil fuel company shall be defined
as any publicly-traded company that extracts, produces, refines, burns or
distributes whose primary business or enterprise is extraction, production, refining,
burning and/or distribution of any fossil fuels and any company with the largest coal, oil,
and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted
if those reserves were extracted and burned, 200 largest of which are listed in the
Carbon Tracker Initiatives Unburnable Carbon report iii; and
WHEREAS, in its Unburnable Carbon report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that
fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release
approximately 2,795 gigatons of CO2 if they are burned, which is five times the amount
that can be released without exceeding 2C of warming; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere Earths climate
is changing drastically and the Arctic snowcap and Antarctic glaciers are melting much
faster than previously estimated and climate change is occurring much faster and likely
to affect each human being presently living on the Planet, iv and
WHEREAS, the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan found that combustion of
fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
Oakland, as well as throughout California and projected local impacts of climate change
caused by GHG emissions include rising Bay and delta waters, increased vulnerability
to flood events, decreased potable water supply due to shrinking Sierra snowpack,
increased fire danger, more extreme heat events and public health impacts, added
stress on infrastructure, higher prices for food and fuels, and other ecological and
quality of life impacts; and current dependence on fossil fuels not only creates heattrapping GHG emissions, but imposes other risks associate with energy security,
environmental impacts (e.g., recent Gulf oil spill), and vulnerability to energy price
volatility, and v
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has no current investments, other than possible
inadvertent de minimus amounts, in fossil fuel companies and has a history of
successfully prohibiting investments in entities that produce outcomes that are harmful
to civilizationsOakland successfully divested from South Africa in 1985 and Burma in
1996 to make a stand against human rights abuses; and companies involved in
Tobacco, Nuclear, and Firearms and Ammunition production to make a stand for the
health and wellbeing of the residents of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Oakland believe that investments should support a future
where all people can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming
climate; and,

1394666.3

WHEREAS, at least twenty-one cities in the United States have committed to freeze
fossil fuel investment and more than two hundred colleges and universities in the United
States have launched campaigns to have their institutions divest from fossil fuel
companies; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby declares that it is the policy of the City of
Oakland to have no financial holdings or investments, other than an inadvertent de
minimus amount defined as less than one percent in any given investment instrument,
in any Fossil Fuel Company, as defined, but not limited to above, (that extracts,
produces, refines, burns or distributes whose primary business or enterprise is
extraction, production, refining, burning and/or distribution of fossil fuels, and any
company with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of
carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, be it
through the direct purchase of commercial paper, a medium term note (corporate bond),
ownership of stock, ownership of mutual funds shares, investment in a private equity
fund owning the stock, or through any other instrument, securities, or other financial
obligations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall, to the
extent practicable, examine the Citys financial holdings and future investments to
assure that the City complies with this City policy by no later than July, 2015 and
periodically beyond; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That if a money market fund has security holdings at or
exceeding 1% in fossil fuel companies, the City will begin to divest out of that money
market fund and be fully divested within one year; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accord with Charter Section 504, the City
Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain compliance with this policy, by
effective methods such as monitoring the financial security holdings of the Citys money
market funds and periodic review of the list of publicly-traded companies that extracts,
produces, refines, burns or distributes whose primary business or enterprise is
extraction, production, refining, burning and/or distribution of fossil fuels, and companies
with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon
dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, as listed in
the Carbon Tracker Initiatives Unburnable Carbon report; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall provide
the Council periodic updates, available to the public, detailing progress made towards
compliance with full divestment; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City urges the governing boards of the Oakland
Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS) to adopt a similar policy and to divest from fossil fuel companies; and be it

1394666.3

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City of Oakland urges other local jurisdictions that
geographically intersect with Oakland to divest from and prohibit future investment of
their respective public funds in fossil fuel companies; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall
prepare a report to the Council by no later than July, 2015 that outlines options for
investing City funds in a socially responsible manner that further maximizes the positive
impact of public funds by seeking out investment opportunities that limit and help to
mitigate effects of burning fossil fuels, including, but not limited to, clean technology,
renewable energy, sustainable companies or projects, and sustainable communities,
etc.; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is directed to forward a copy of this
enacted Resolution to the governing boards of OMERS, PFRS and the CalPERS, and
to the elected governing boards of special district jurisdictions vi that intersect with
Oakland, and to state legislative elected officials representing Oakland.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report Impact Forecasting 2012
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20130124_if_annual_global_climate_catastrophe_rep
ort.pdf
iii http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Fullrev2.pdf, Page 13
i

ii

iv

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp;
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak039056.pdf; Page 4, 23
and 58

vi

AC Transit, BART, East Bay MUD, East Bay Regional Parks District, Peralta Community Colleges.

1394666.3

Revised June 17, 2014

Approved as to Form and Legality
________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No. ____________________C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER KALB

RESOLUTION OF THE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING A

CITY POLICY PROHIBITING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS OR
HOLDING ANY INVESTMENT OR OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ANY
COMPANIES THAT EXTRACT, PRODUCE, REFINE, BURN OR
DISTRIBUTE FOSSIL FUELS, AND (2) DIRECTING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE TO EXAMINE THE CITYS
HOLDINGS AND FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ASSURE THAT THE
CITY COMPLIES WITH THIS POLICY, AND (3) URGING THE
GOVERNING
BOARDS
OF
THE
OAKLAND
MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (OMERS), THE OAKLAND
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PFRS) AND THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(CALPERS) TO DIVEST FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL
FUEL COMPANIES,
AND (4) URGING OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT INTERSECT WITH OAKLAND TO DIVEST
FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, ALL IN
AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE OAKLAND
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND DIMINISH THE USE OF
FOSSIL FUELS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE
WHEREAS, the climate crisis is a severe threat to current and future generations here
in Oakland and around the world; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Reporti found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of
human and natural systems throughout the world including the melting of Arctic ice, the
oceans rise, increase in oceans acidity, flooding and drought, and the IPCC Fifth
Assessment reports further indicate that global warming is proceeding at a faster pace
than had been previously thought; and
WHEREAS, these extreme events have and will continue to negatively impact the U.S.
economy. In 2012, the United States accounted for 67% of the $160 billion lost globally
due to natural catastrophesii; and
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed through the 2009
Copenhagen Accord that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise would be hazardous,

1394666.3

and that if humans release only about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere this limit will be not possible to maintain; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this resolution, a fossil fuel company shall be defined
as any publicly-traded company whose primary business or enterprise is extraction,
production, refining, burning and/or distribution of any fossil fuels and any company with
the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide
that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, 200 largest of which
are listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiatives Unburnable Carbon reportiii; and
WHEREAS, in its Unburnable Carbon report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that
fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release
approximately 2,795 gigatons of CO2 if they are burned, which is five times the amount
that can be released without exceeding 2C of warming; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere Earths climate
is changing drastically and the Arctic snowcap and Antarctic glaciers are melting much
faster than previously estimated and climate change is occurring much faster and likely
to affect each human being presently living on the Planet,iv and
WHEREAS, the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan found that combustion of
fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
Oakland, as well as throughout California and projected local impacts of climate change
caused by GHG emissions include rising Bay and delta waters, increased vulnerability
to flood events, decreased potable water supply due to shrinking Sierra snowpack,
increased fire danger, more extreme heat events and public health impacts, added
stress on infrastructure, higher prices for food and fuels, and other ecological and
quality of life impacts; and current dependence on fossil fuels not only creates heattrapping GHG emissions, but imposes other risks associate with energy security,
environmental impacts (e.g., recent Gulf oil spill), and vulnerability to energy price
volatility, andv
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has no current investments, other than possible
inadvertent de minimus amounts, in fossil fuel companies and has a history of
successfully prohibiting investments in entities that produce outcomes that are harmful
to civilizationsOakland successfully divested from South Africa in 1985 and Burma in
1996 to make a stand against human rights abuses; and companies involved in
Tobacco, Nuclear, and Firearms and Ammunition production to make a stand for the
health and wellbeing of the residents of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Oakland believe that investments should support a future
where all people can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming
climate; and,
WHEREAS, at least twenty-one cities in the United States have committed to freeze
fossil fuel investment and more than two hundred colleges and universities in the United

1394666.3

States have launched campaigns to have their institutions divest from fossil fuel
companies; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby declares that it is the policy of the City of
Oakland to have no financial holdings or investments, other than an inadvertent de
minimus amount defined as less than one percent in any given investment instrument,
in any Fossil Fuel Company, as defined, but not limited to above, whose primary
business or enterprise is the extraction, production, refining, burning and/or distribution
of fossil fuels, and any company with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as
measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves
were extracted and burned, be it through the direct purchase of commercial paper, a
medium term note (corporate bond), ownership of stock, ownership of mutual funds
shares, investment in a private equity fund owning the stock, or through any other
instrument, securities, or other financial obligations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall, to the
extent practicable, examine the Citys financial holdings and future investments to
assure that the City complies with this City policy by no later than July, 2015 and
periodically beyond; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That if a money market fund has security holdings at or
exceeding 1% in fossil fuel companies, the City will begin to divest out of that money
market fund and be fully divested within one year; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accord with Charter Section 504, the City
Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain compliance with this policy, by
effective methods such as monitoring the financial security holdings of the Citys money
market funds and periodic review of the list of publicly-traded companies whose primary
business or enterprise is extraction, production, refining, burning and/or distribution of
fossil fuels, and companies with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by
the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted
and burned, as listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiatives Unburnable Carbon report; and
be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall provide
the Council periodic updates, available to the public, detailing progress made towards
compliance with full divestment; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City urges the governing boards of the Oakland
Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS) to adopt a similar policy and to divest from fossil fuel companies; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City of Oakland urges other local jurisdictions that
geographically intersect with Oakland to divest from and prohibit future investment of
their respective public funds in fossil fuel companies; and be it

1394666.3

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall
prepare a report to the Council by no later than July, 2015 that outlines options for
investing City funds in a socially responsible manner that further maximizes the positive
impact of public funds by seeking out investment opportunities that limit and help to
mitigate effects of burning fossil fuels, including, but not limited to, clean technology,
renewable energy, sustainable companies or projects, and sustainable communities,
etc.; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is directed to forward a copy of this
enacted Resolution to the governing boards of OMERS, PFRS and the CalPERS, and
to the elected governing boards of special district jurisdictions vi that intersect with
Oakland, and to state legislative elected officials representing Oakland.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report Impact Forecasting 2012
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20130124_if_annual_global_climate_catastrophe_rep
ort.pdf
iii http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Fullrev2.pdf, Page 13
i

ii

iv

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp;
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak039056.pdf; Page 4, 23
and 58

vi

AC Transit, BART, East Bay MUD, East Bay Regional Parks District, Peralta Community Colleges.

1394666.3

Revised June 17, 2014

Approved as tc

MLtD
^fHCI Of THE CIT Y eitftfr.
OAKLAND

u JUN 12 PM 3:13 OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No.

8 5 0 5 3

c.M.S

INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER KALB

RESOLUTION OF THE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL (1) DECLARING A

CITY POLICY PROHIBITING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS OR
HOLDING ANY INVESTMENT OR OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ANY
COMPANIES THAT EXTRACT, PRODUCE, REFINE, BURN OR
DISTRIBUTE FOSSIL FUELS, AND (2) DIRECTING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE TO EXAMINE THE CITY'S
HOLDINGS AND FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ASSURE THAT THE
CITY COMPLIES WITH THIS POLICY, AND (3) URGING THE
GOVERNING
BOARDS
OF
THE
OAKLAND
MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (OMERS), THE OAKLAND
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PFRS) AND THE
CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(CALPERS)TO DIVEST FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL
FUEL
COMPANIES,
AND
(4)
URGING
OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT INTERSECT WITH OAKLAND TO DIVEST
FROM ALL PUBLICLY-TRADED FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, ALL IN
AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE OAKLAND
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND DIMINISH THE USE OF
FOSSIL FUELS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE
WHEREAS, the climate crisis is a severe threat to current and future generations here
in Oakland and around the world; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report' found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of
human and natural systems throughout the world including the melting of Arctic ice, the
ocean's rise, increase in ocean's acidity, flooding and drought, and the IPCC Fifth
Assessment reports further indicate that global warming is proceeding at a faster pace
than had been previously thought; and
WHEREAS, these extreme events have and will continue to negatively impact the U.S.
economy. In 2012, the United States accounted for 67% of the $160 billion lost globally
due to natural catastrophes"; and
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed through the 2009
Copenhagen Accord that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise would be hazardous,

1394666.3

and that if humans release only about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere this limit will be not possible to maintain; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this resolution, a "fossil fuel company" shall be defined
as any publicly-traded company whose primary business or enterprise is extraction,
production, refining, burning and/or distribution of any fossil fuels and any company with
the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide
that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted and burned, 200 largest of which
are listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiative's "Unburnable Carbon" report'"; and
WHEREAS, in its "Unburnable Carbon" report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that
fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release
approximately 2,795 gigatons of C 0 2 if they are burned, which is five times the amount
that can be released without exceeding 2C of warming; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere Earth's climate
is changing drastically and the Arctic snowcap and Antarctic glaciers are melting much
faster than previously estimated and climate change is occurring much faster and likely
to affect each human being presently living on the Planet,'^ and
WHEREAS, the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan found that combustion of
fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
Oakland, as well as throughout California and projected local impacts of climate change
caused by GHG emissions include rising Bay and delta waters, increased vulnerability
to flood events, decreased potable water supply due to shrinking Sierra snowpack,
increased fire danger, more extreme heat events and public health impacts, added
stress on infrastructure, higher prices for food and fuels, and other ecological and
quality of life impacts; and current dependence on fossil fuels not only creates heattrapping GHG emissions, but imposes other risks associate with energy security,
environmental impacts (e.g., recent Gulf oil spill), and vulnerability to energy price
volatility, and^
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has no current investments, other than possible
inadvertent de minimus amounts, in fossil fuel companies and has a history of
successfully prohibiting investments in entities that produce outcomes that are harmful
to civilizationsOakland successfully divested from South Africa in 1985 and Burma in
1996 to make a stand against human rights abuses; and companies involved in
Tobacco, Nuclear, and Firearms and Ammunition production to make a stand for the
health and wellbeing of the residents of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Oakland believe that investments should support a future
where all people can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming
climate; and,
WHEREAS, at least twenty-one cities in the United States have committed to freeze
fossil fuel investment and more than two hundred colleges and universities in the United

1394666.3

States have launched campaigns to have their institutions divest from fossil fuel
companies; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby declares that it is the policy of the City of
Oakland to have no financial holdings or investments, other than an inadvertent de
minimus amount defined as less than one percent in any given investment instrument,
in any Fossil Fuel Company, as defined, but not limited to above, whose primary
business or enterprise is the extraction, production, refining, burning and/or distribution
of fossil fuels, and any company with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as
measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves
were extracted and burned, be it through the direct purchase of commercial paper, a
medium term note (corporate bond), ownership of stock, ownership of mutual funds
shares, investment in a private equity fund owning the stock, or through any other
instrument, securities, or other financial obligations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall, to the
extent practicable, examine the City's financial holdings and future investments to
assure that the City complies with this City policy by no later than July, 2015 and
periodically beyond; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That if a money market fund has security holdings at or
exceeding 1% in fossil fuel companies, the City will begin to divest out of that money
market fund and be fully divested within one year; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accord with Charter Section 504, the City
Administrator, or his/her designee, shall maintain compliance with this policy, by
effective methods such as monitoring the financial security holdings of the City's money
market funds and periodic review of the list of publicly-traded companies whose primary
business or enterprise is extraction, production, refining, burning and/or distribution of
fossil fuels, and companies with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as measured by
the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were extracted
and burned, as listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiative's "Unburnable Carbon" report; and
be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his/her designee, shall provide
the Council periodic updates, available to the public, detailing progress made towards
compliance with full divestment; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City urges the governing boards of the Oakland
Municipal Employees' Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire
Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS) to adopt a similar policy and to divest from fossil fuel companies; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City of Oakland urges other local jurisdictions that
geographically intersect with Oakland to divest from and prohibit future investment of
their respective public funds in fossil fuel companies; and be it

1394666.3

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator, or his or her designee, shall
prepare a report to the Council by no later than July, 2015 that outlines options for
investing City funds in a socially responsible manner that further maximizes the positive
impact of public funds by seeking out investment opportunities that limit and help to
mitigate effects of burning fossil fuels, including, but not limited to, clean technology,
renewable energy, sustainable companies or projects, and sustainable communities,
etc.; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator is directed to fonward a copy of this
enacted Resolution to the governing boards of OMERS, PFRS and the CalPERS, and
to the elected governing boards of special district jurisdictions^' that intersect with
Oakland, and to state legislative elected officials representing Oakland.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

"^^^

2014

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF. AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN S

NOESABSENT - G(
ABSTENTION-S^

, x

^
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

' http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4 syr.pdf

'^ ,
Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report Impact Forecasting 2012
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20130124 if annual global climate catastrophe rep
ort.pdf
"' http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Fullrev2.pdf. Page 13

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechanae/science/future.html

;
^ \ '"

" http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakcal/groups/pwaydocuments/report/oak039056.pdf: Page 4, 23

and 58
V' AC Transit, BART, East Bay MUD, East Bay Regional Parks District, Peralta Community Colleges.

1394666.3

FOSSIL FUELS
by RAIL

Recent Trend

The Danger

It Happened Before

It Might Happen Again!

Recommendation
The recommendation is for the Public Works
Committee to approve the resolution to oppose
transportation of hazardous fossil fuel materials,
including crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke, along
California waterways, through densely populated
areas, through the city of Oakland
and pass it to the full City Council for adoption.

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:48 AM
To: 'Linda Rudolph'; 'Jeffrey Hoffman'
Subject:
FW: Divestment OpEd
Attachments: DRAFT Fossil Fuels Divest OpEd_2014_DK_SM.docx; DRAFT Fossil Fuels
Divest OpEd_2014_DK.docx
Hello,
Thank you for your patience!
Attached are:
*
DRAFT Fossil Fuels Divest OpEd_2014_DK Very minor edits by Dan
*
DRAFT Fossil Fuels Divest OpEd_2014_DK_SM _ With much more substantial changes from the
Mayors office.
Please feel free to decide which one you want to use.
Thank you again for all your help!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Maher, Sean
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:43 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: RE: Divestment OpEd
I was targeting 500 words but only cleared it under 600; do what you will!
Thanks,
Sean
From: Bolotina, Olga
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:45 PM
To: Maher, Sean
Subject: Divestment OpEd
Thank you so much Sean!
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612

Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

From: Eve-Fisher, Saundra D.

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:04 PM
To: Hom, Donna
Cc: Farmer, Casey; Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
FW: Following up on Resolution (Opposition to Crude Oil coming through
Oakland)
Attachments: 85054 C.M.S (4).pdf
Importance:

High

Hi Casey,
I have included Donna in the e-mail because I do not have an answer to your question.
Saundra
From: Farmer, Casey [mailto:CFarmer@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:49 AM
To: Eve-Fisher, Saundra D.
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Following up on Resolution (Opposition to Crude Oil coming through Oakland)
Hi Saundra,
Im following up on the requests for the City Administrator that were included in this resolution passed
in June 2015. The resolution authorized and directed the City Administrator to send our resolution & a
letter to a number of agencies and Im checking in to see if that has been done and to see if you could
point me to the staffer who was responsible for those tasks.
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: Cowan, Richard

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 3:30 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
FW: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
Here it is!
Richard Cowan
Chief of Staff
Office of Mayor Jean Quan
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7167 work
rcowan@oaklandnet.com
From: Boyd, Karen
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:24 PM
To: Cowan, Richard
Subject: FW: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
Can you help me with this? Lets talk
Thanks!
From: Linda Rudolph [mailto:rudolph.linda@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:04 PM
To: Boyd, Karen
Subject: Fwd: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
Hello - last week we worked with Sean Mayer and dan kalb/olga bolortina on an op-ed for the
Sacramento Bee on the fossil fuels divestment resolution, which Mayor McLaughlin of
Richmond and Mayor Bates of Oakland also agreed to co-author. It now looks like the Bee wants
to publish on Thursday, but they will only let us have three signers. The Bee editorial page editor
want the three mayors to sign. I've suggested some language to Olga and to the Bee that would
still give recognition to dan kalb for his authorship of the resolution. I'm waiting to hear back
from Olga, and hope they are amenable to having Mayor Quan be the signer .
In the mean time, the BEE wants a photo of Mayor Quan as soon as possible, so if you could
send one to frhee@sacbee.com with a cc to me ASAP that would be great. The bee version (very
minor edits on what we submitted, that look fine) is below FYI.
Thank you very much.
If any questions, I can be reached at 510-206-9713
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Linda Rudolph <rudolph.linda@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:55 PM
Subject: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
To: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Thanks much Olga. I would like to get back to the sac bee tomorrow morning so we don't miss
the publication opportunity. Thanks again.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Hello Linda,
Thank you very much for your efforts!
Your suggestion might be expectable, but Ill have to check with Dan (he is at the Public Safety
Committee now). Thankyou!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Linda Rudolph [mailto:rudolph.linda@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:44 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga; Maher, Sean
Cc: Jeff Hoffman
Subject: Fwd: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
Hello Olga and Sean. First, great news that the Bee wants to publish the divestment op-ed this
week.
However, they are not willing to have more than three bylines, and have suggested that the three
mayors be the signatories. I am not quite sure how to handle this. I do think it's very important
to have all three cities represented in terms of strengthening the message and the impact. I also
understand why the editorials editor thinks the three mayors should be the authors. However, it
was Dan's resolution, and I think he should get credit. And I also appreciate the editing that Dan
and Sean did on the piece.
I haven't gotten the Bee-edited version yet, but one idea that I wanted to run by you would be to
have the three mayors sign, per Sac Bee suggestion, but to add something in the op=ed crediting
Dan with the resolution. For example, could we change the first line to say "unanimously
supported a resolution by Council member Dan Kalb to divest."
Please let me know what you think the right thing to do is here, as I need to get back to Foon
Rhee ASAP. Thanks so much again.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Rhee, Foon <frhee@sacbee.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
To: Linda Rudolph <rudolph.linda@gmail.com>
So we're looking at getting this in this week. I would suggest having the three mayors be the
authors. I'll send back an edited version, hopefully on Wed. In the meantime, can you send along
mug shots of the mayors?
Thanks,

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Rhee, Foon <frhee@sacbee.com> wrote:

Will look at this, but our rule, other than exceptional circumstances, is three bylines max. This
doesn't appear to be an exceptional circumstance.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Linda Rudolph <rudolph.linda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello. Below and attached is an op-ed submission that has been prepared and signed by
multiple local elected officials from the East Bay. I have been coordinating the editing and
signing process, and Dan Morain suggested I send to because the on-line submission process
does not have an apparent mechanism for multiple authors to submit. Please let me know if
you have any questions, and I am hopeful you will publish this op-ed. Thank you very much.
Linda Rudolph
510-206-9713
EAST BAY CITIES DIVESTMENT FROM DIRTY FUELS
OP-ED, SACRAMENTO BEE
Last month, the Oakland City Council unanimously agreed to divest city
funds from companies that hold the largest reserves of coal, oil, and natural
gas, and to encourage the California Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS) the largest public pension fund in the nation to do the same.
A growing number of local elected officials and CalPERS beneficiaries say
CalPERS should follow the lead of Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, San
Francisco and Santa Monica and join a fast-growing movement across the
country to divest from fossil fuels.
The evidence is clear that climate change is happening now, and that we
are feeling its effects. Governor Jerry Brown recently noted that California,
with its severe drought, historically low Sierra snowpack, and devastating
wildfires is on the front lines of climate change and that humanity is on a
collision course with nature and were just going to have to adapt to it in the
best way we can. The worlds scientists and the U.N. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that without rapid and robust
transformation of our energy use reducing greenhouse gas emissions
while shifting to clean energy adequate adaptation will become
increasingly costly and difficult.
Theres also a big risk to keeping CalPERS dollars in dirty fossil fuels..The
International Energy Agency (IEA) has concluded that No more than onethird of proven reserves of fossil fuel can be consumed prior to 2050 if the
world is to limit global warming to 20C. That goal offers the best chance of
avoiding runaway climate disruption. If the worlds governments take
responsible action to prevent climate catastrophe, fossil fuel companies will
have to leave some 75% of their reserves in the ground. Those companies
are valued by Wall Street analysts on the basis of their reserves.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies continue to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars on exploration for new reserves. A growing carbon bubble
overvalued companies, wasted capital and stranded assets poses a huge
risk to investments in fossil fuels.
CalPERS, which holds almost $10 billion in major fossil fuel company
stocks, recognizes this financial risk. It recently adopted investment beliefs

that include consideration of risk factors, for example climate change and
natural resource availability, that emerge slowly over long time periods, but
could have material impact on company or portfolio returns.
Exxon and the fossil fuel industry in concert with the likes of the Koch
brothers have poured millions of dollars into sowing doubt about climate
science, lobbying against clean energy and in favor of oil subsidies, and
working to undermine the low-carbon fuel and other standards that have
made California the leader in efforts to address climate change.
The good news is that clean energy regulations not only fight climate
change, they also help clean the air we breathe and make our communities
healthier. When state and local governments are working overtime to
implement ambitious climate change programs and to prepare for and
respond to climate impacts, our public pension dollars should not subsidize
the companies that are fighting against us. Its time to put our money where
our mouthsand lungsare.
As local elected officials, we believe that our investments should instead
support a future where all residents can live healthy lives without the
negative impacts of climate change and dirty air. Its time for CalPERS to
take our public pension dollars out of dirty fossil fuels, and reinvest in
building a clean energy future, for the sake of our health, our environment
and our children.
Signed,
Dan Kalb
Oakland City Council Member
Tom Bates
Mayor of Berkeley
Gayle McLaughlin
Mayor of Richmond
Jean Quan
Mayor of Oakland

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Morain, Dan <dmorain@sacbee.com>

Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: QUestion re submission of op-ed with multiple authors
To: Linda Rudolph <rudolph.linda@gmail.com>
send it to frhee@sacbee.com and greed@sacbee.com with a note why you're send it to them
Dan Morain
Editorial Page Editor
Sacramento Bee
916 321 1907

916 201 6281 - cell

dmorain@sacbee.com
Twitter @danielmorain
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Linda Rudolph <rudolph.linda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello. On your op-ed submission webpage I am not finding a way for multiple authors to
submit an op-ed.. I have been helping to coordinate writing of an op-ed for the Bee with
multiple elected officials from Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco. Please
advise. Thank you very much.
(topic is divestment of CalPERS from fossil fuels)

-Foon Rhee
Associate editor
The Sacramento Bee
916 321-1913
frhee@sacbee.com
Twitter @foonrhee

-Foon Rhee
Associate editor
The Sacramento Bee
916 321-1913
frhee@sacbee.com
Twitter @foonrhee

-Foon Rhee
Associate editor
The Sacramento Bee
916 321-1913
frhee@sacbee.com
Twitter @foonrhee

From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman <jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga; Farmer, Casey
Subject:
Fwd: [COAL-EXPORT-FORUM] Portland Tribune: City and County to
consider fossil fuel export policy
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ---------http://portlandtribune.com/sl/252410-122018-city-county-to-consider-fossil-fuel-export-policy
City, county to consider fossil fuel
export policy
Tuesday, 03 March 2015 15:42 | Written by Steve Law
Portland and Multnomah County would adopt a firm position against coal and oil exports through
their territories, under a draft revision of their joint Climate Action Plan.
If adopted by the Portland City Council and Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, that
would make it hard for any oil or coal export projects to win permits or facilities needed from either
jurisdiction.
There appears to be consensus among Multnomah County commissioners and residents against
coal and oil exports, based on their potential health and safety impacts, says John Wasiutynski,
director of the county Office of Sustainability.
But the draft policy, which goes out for public review this week, is silent on exports of natural gas
and propane, which have lower carbon emissions than coal and oil and produce far fewer air
pollutants.
There are two major proposals to export Liquefied Natural Gas on pipelines through Oregon to
export terminals in Coos Bay and the north coast, as well as a proposal to build a $500 million
propane export terminal in North Portland at the Port of Portland.
The draft Climate Action Plan update calls for both government agencies to adopt a formal policy
on fossil fuel exports. That could eventually lead to a city and county policy on exports other than
coal and oil, such as natural gas and propane.
Well continue to see these as an issue, because Multnomah County is a chokepoint for fossil fuel
exports, said Tim Lynch, a senior policy analyst in the countys Office of Sustainability. For the
communities in the (Columbia River) Gorge, this is going to continue to be an issue, he said,
because of existing or proposed use of barges on the Columbia River or rail lines alongside the river
for coal, oil and propane shipments.
The conversation around natural gas and propane is more nuanced, said Michael Armstrong,
deputy director of the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Both are seen as important
transitional fuels that could wean the world from burning coal and oil until there is enough wind,
solar and other forms of clean, renewable energy.
Natural gas, when burned, produces about half the carbon emissions as coal, without most of the
air pollutants. However, to the extent natural gas leaks into the atmosphere, that advantage can be
reduced or lost, because its largely composed of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide.
Propane has a lower carbon impact than coal or oil, but it produces 19 percent more emissions
than natural gas, said Susan Anderson, director of the city Planning and Sustainability Bureau.
But propane burns cleanly, so it can be very useful when replacing older school buses and
commercial trucks that run on diesel fuel, Anderson said. Diesel is now officially a carcinogen, and is
traced to an estimated 460 deaths a year in Oregon.
The catch is the city and county dont want to see a situation where natural gas and propane are
institutionalized as fuel sources, instead of being viewed as transitional fuels. If we merely substitute

natural gas for coal and leave it at that, Armstrong said, that will slow our transition to solar, wind
and other clean energy sources.
Anything done to lower natural gas prices can delay the adoption of wind and solar, Anderson said,
because of price advantages.
Ironically, LNG exports are likely to raise the cost of domestic natural gas, because that will reduce
the supply.
Coal exports is really an easy case, Wasiutynsky said, but propane is more complicated. Theres
potentially climate benefits depending on how the fuel is used.
However, using an existing supply of propane to power school buses is different from building an
expensive export terminal, he said, because that would mean the region is investing long-term in
fossil fuels.
In any case, its doubtful any emerging fossil fuel export policy would have any bearing on the
propane plant proposal, which is now expected to go before the Portland Planning and Sustainability
Commission for a vote on April 7.
stevelaw@portlandtribune.com
503-546-5139
@SteveLawTrib

-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: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:15 PM
To: Kalb, Dan
Subject:
Fwd: Item #4 Fossil Fuels by Rail_Presentation_June.10.2014
Attachments: Item #4 Fossil Fuels by Rail_Presentation_June.10.2014

Sent from my HTC phone.

----- Forwarded message ----From: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
To: "Munson, Michael" <MMunson@oaklandnet.com>
Subject: Item #4 Fossil Fuels by Rail_Presentation_June.10.2014
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2014 11:59 AM

From: deborah.silvey <deborah.silvey@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 3:50 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Fwd: Jane's public comment to CalSTRS Investment Committee
meeting
Attachments: CalSTRS timed presentation FINAL (post).docx
Hi Olga,
This is the talk I mentioned. Feel free to use what you can.
Deborah
On Friday, June 6, 2014 9:02:12 PM UTC-7, Jane Vosburg wrote:
Deborah, Melissa and I attended the CalSTRS Investment Committee meeting today. The
attached is my 5-minutes worth of public comment.
Jane

-"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed,
it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

From: deborah.silvey <deborah.silvey@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 3:51 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Fwd: June18th briefing to SF Retire System board - relevant to all
public sector divest activity
Attachments: SFERS Info Session Agenda.docx
Olga,
This is the June 18th meeting I was referring to.
Deborah
On Friday, May 30, 2014 3:20:53 PM UTC-7, Martha Turner wrote:
Hello Everyone
On June 18th, 2 4 PM the Board of Administration for the San Francisco Employee Retirement
System will be the recipient of a briefing by experts on the case for divesting fossil fuel
companies from the portfolio. All are invited to attend this briefing.
In the attached file is the agenda and the list of bios for the presenters. Physical location for
the briefing is likely to be SF City Hall and finalized info on that point will be circulated soon.
The SF Employee Retirement System board has been skeptical, even critical, of fossil fuel
divestment. To simply have this briefing occurring is a significant step. Please feel free to
circulate the invitation below to persons whom you think are interested in the topic of
divestment. While some details of the presentations will be specific to the San Francisco
system, the concepts that will be discussed are relevant to all efforts to encourage divestment
by public sector entities that are managing funds for retirement and health care benefits. It will
also be an opportunity to refine the arguments for removing fossil fuel companies from the
portfolios, based on the experience of discussion with the Employee Retirement System
board.
If you have questions about the briefing content or presenters, please send them to Brett
Fleishman, br...@350.org, the convener for this briefing.
best wishes,
Martha Turner
350 Sacramento
http://www.350Sacramento.org
https://www.facebook.com/350Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear X,
I am pleased to invite you to a special board meeting of the San Francisco Employee Retirement
System on Carbon Risk and fossil free investing. OnJune 18th, from 2pm to 4pm, the San
Francisco Employee Retirement System board will convene a special information session to
hear expert testimony regarding the risk of coal, oil and gas companies to the pension fund
portfolio and the low risk of fossil fuel divestment.

Currently, San Franciscos pension fund holds almost $620 million in coal, oil and gas public
equity stocks. Please come to City Hall to learn alongside of the SFERS board while they do their
due diligence on the risk of carbon and the process of divestment.
Speakers for the session include the former Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange
Commission and several investment analysts, lawyers and Environmental Social Governance
investment professionals. Topics will include fiduciary law, fossil free indexes, engagement,
carbon risk, and data support. See attachment for a detailed agenda.
This is an opportunity to see a large institutional investor thinking through one of the greatest
risks to investors today. We look forward to seeing you on June 18th at 2pm in City Hall.
Kind Regards,
XX

From: Meg Matthews <meg.matthews@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:19 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Fwd: Just in case - Oakland release
Hi Olga,
We thought you might be able to answer this reporter's inquiry--if so, go for it and just let me
know. :) Thanks!
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Debra Kahn <dkahn@eenews.net>
Date: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: Just in case - Oakland release
To: Meg Matthews <meg.matthews@sierraclub.org>
Thanks. I'm writing about both this vote and the resolution they passed to divest from fossil fuels, so I'm
hoping you can put me in touch with someone who can talk about both of them, as well as put it into
context statewide - which other cities have voted on these things?
If someone's able to talk, you can just have them give me a call at 415 871-5477.
Thanks again,
Debra
From: Meg Matthews [meg.matthews@sierraclub.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:36 AM
To: Debra Kahn
Subject: Just in case - Oakland release
Here it is! Let me know if you need anything else:
Link to release with photo: http://bit.ly/1qqWSff
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2014
Contact: Meg Matthews, meg.matthews@sierraclub.org / 206.291.5942
Oakland City Council Formally Opposes Transport of Hazardous Fossil Fuels
Local residents applaud council for officially raising concerns about oil and coal export
proposals
OAKLAND, Calif. - Community members rallied at City Hall this evening, urging the Oakland
City Council to support a resolution that opposes transporting coal, petroleum coke, crude
oil and other hazardous materials along rail lines in Oakland and the East Bay. A few hours
later, the council unanimously passed the resolution, officially raising city concerns about
environmental problems, public health hazards, economic pitfalls and public opposition to
exports. The resolution marks the first step in addressing the hazards of Bay Area coal and
oil exports.
Oakland is the first city in California to pass a resolution that addresses railway
transportation of not only oil but also coal and petcoke. The resolution was originally
introduced by councilmembers Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney and Rebecca Kaplan.

This resolution is critical to protect the health, safety and well-being of Oakland and East
Bay families and businesses, not to mention the cultural and economic vitality of our
communities, said Councilmember McElhaney. Oakland is leading the way for Californians
who want to tell Big Coal and Big Oil that we cannot bear the risk they impose upon on our
town.
A coalition of local community members and organizations mobilized to support passage of
this resolution, including the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Communities
for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, San Francisco Baykeeper,
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club.
From the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Coast, from mine to rail and port to plant, local
communities are standing up against dangerous coal and oil exports, said Jess DervinAckerman, conservation organizer with the Sierra Clubs San Francisco Bay Chapter. We
want our local economy to be bolstered by clean, renewable energy from wind and solar,
not carbon-intensive, highly-polluting fossil fuels.
Due to strong community organizing, coal, petcoke and oil export facilities have been
unable to move forward along much of the West Coast. Other communities in California
have passed similar resolutions regarding oil transport, including Berkeley and Richmond.
In Washington and Oregon, three coal export proposals have been abandoned and the
remaining three face fierce opposition from tens of thousands of citizens and hundreds of
groups, businesses and elected officials.
If we allow fossil fuel exports to travel through our communities, it will undo our regions
energy and climate leadership and threaten the health and safety of our local communities,
said Suma Peesapati, staff attorney with Earthjustice. It makes no sense to move
backwards at a time when the EPA and our state leaders are taking real steps to protect
Californians from dirty fossil fuels, carbon pollution and the threat of climate disruption.
Coal dust and diesel particulate matter from the numerous open top mile-long trains to
transport these commodities would pose significant air and water quality threats to Bay Area
families. On average, each car loses 500 pounds of coal per trip for more than 60,000
pounds lost per train. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust that contains lead, arsenic,
uranium, and hundreds of other heavy metal toxins harmful to fish and human health.
The city of Oakland has an asthma hospitalization rate that is two times higher than the rest
of Alameda County.
Ten years of advocacy have cleaned our windowsills of diesel soot, said Brian Beveridge,
co-director at West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. We don't want replace it with
coal dust.
"We've seen damage from the Cosco Busan oil spill continuing to impair the Bay years
later, and yet shipment of crude by rail lacks most of the basic safety protections in place for
marine vessels," said Jason Flanders, Program Director at San Francisco
Baykeeper. "Oakland is simply playing self-defense, while more state and federal
regulations are needed."
Coal dust can also contribute to train derailments, which is especially troubling in light of the
oil train traffic also moving through the densely populated urban area.
Im thrilled that Oakland City Council took a strong stand to protect our communities by
opposing transport of dangerous Fossil Fuels by rail through the heart of Oakland, said

councilmember Kalb. Lets protect the health and safety of our communities by investing
our expertise and resources in choices that keep Oakland on the leading edge of the
countrys clean energy economy.
###
-Meg Matthews
Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign
Associate Press Secretary - Pacific Northwest region
206.291.5942
@megmatthews

-Meg Matthews
Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign
Associate Press Secretary - Pacific Northwest region
206.291.5942
@megmatthews

From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman <jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 4:31 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga; Farmer, Casey; Overman, Jason
Subject:
Fwd: Stop Dirty Fossil Fuels from Rolling Through Oakland!
FYI! See you out there on Tuesday.
Jess
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman, Sierra Club <jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Stop Dirty Fossil Fuels from Rolling Through Oakland!
To: jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org

View a web version | Send to a Friend | Sent to jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org (Not

You? Sign Up Here)

Dear Jessica,
Support Oakland's leadership on
climate-smart action
Tuesday,
June 17, 5 p.m.
Big Oil and Coal companies want to ship dangerous fossil fuels through the East Bay by
rail. Will you help us stop them?
The Oakland City Council has introduced a resolution to oppose the transport of coal, crude oil,
and petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining) along rail lines in Oakland and the East Bay.
This is the first step in ensuring that the City, Port, and Oakland Army Base ban the export and
handling of dirty and dangerous fossil fuels that harm our health, wreak havoc on the
environment, and contribute to climate disruption.
Support Oakland's leadership on this issue by rallying outside of next week's city council
meeting:
WHAT: Rally at the Oakland City Council Meeting
WHEN: Tuesday, June 17, 5 p.m.
WHERE: Oakland Civic Center, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA (map)
RSVP now!
Berkeley and Richmond have already passed resolutions opposing dangerous crude by rail, and
San Francisco is working toward banning fossil fuel exports from their port. In order to curb
climate disruption, we need to stop burning fossils fuels and keep them in the ground. Let's
support our local elected officials who continue to show leadership on climate, and block the
West Coast from exporting fossil fuels to foreign markets. We hope to see you at the rally on
Tuesday!
Thanks for all you do for the climate,

Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
P.S. Share this event with your social networks:
Share this action on Facebook
Share this action on Twitter

Unsubscribe from the SF Bay Chapter Updates

Update My Profile Manage My Email Preferences | Update My Interests | Explore Our Online Communities
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
2530 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94702

-Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Organizer
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

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kalb, Dan
Daniel Rossi
Fwd: Mtg with Port officials
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:39:38 AM

FYI
-Dan Kalb
Oakland City Councilmember
510-238-7001

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Date: May 26, 2015 at 10:39:51 PM PDT
To: "Kalb, Dan" <DKalb@oaklandnet.com>, Barbara Parker
<BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>, Richard Illgen
<RIllgen@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Subject: RE: Mtg with Port officials
At 10:30am. Wednesday.
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:
SeeClickFix
-----Original Message----From: Kalb, Dan
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:39 PM
To: Barbara Parker; Richard Illgen
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Mtg with Port officials
Hi Barbara, Richard I'm meeting with Danny Wan and Port Commissioner Hamlin here in city
hall about Coal potentially going through the former Army Base.

Can someone from your office attend this meeting as well? Sorry for the
short notice.
Thanks,
-Dan
-Dan Kalb
Oakland City Councilmember
510-238-7001

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-__________

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS
LIKE CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS,
THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH [name of community]
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude
oil and petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California;
and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing
permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand
export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution
No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity
generation to any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air
emissions as restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude
by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive
review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany
County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health
investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning
the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport
and export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and
federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized
the harms of coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of
Washington Department of Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative
impacts analysis of proposed coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning
the Powder River Basin to Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new
legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust
and health impacts;
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the
volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year alone
accompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail
accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in
2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in LacMgantic, Canada, causing explosions that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused
over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of
those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal
train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train

on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers
across California with coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by
rail found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute
to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four
victims to lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant
costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars
and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including
train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil
shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by
rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and
environmental damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude,
and to improve rail safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency
response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel
of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other
recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines
has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency
room visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults;
increased risk of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead - and exposure to
these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as
well as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow
routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and its tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento
River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and [add any other local waterways] posing a serious threat
to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old
steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents;
and

WHEREAS trains delivering crude, coal and petcoke would pass through [names of community and
neighboring communities; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in any populated area;
and
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
cities; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through
[name of community] and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the [name of community] City Council opposes using existing
rail lines to transport hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways, through densely
populated areas, through the [name of community], and resolves to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air
permits or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for
coal, petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York
Governor Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil
and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal
mining, transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the [Bay Area, San Joaquin or relevant]Air Quality Management District
demanding public notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection
with fossil fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
recent substitution of Bakken crude for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without
any public notification or CEQA review;

Commit to fighting crude oil, coal and petroleum coke transport through [name of community]
utilizing the citys legal staff, working with local stakeholders and other groups, including filing
amicus briefs in support of neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused
by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through [name of community] by actively
enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes;
engaging in state and federal regulatory processes; and by actively enforcing applicable federal
environmental statutes delegated to [name of community];

Request that railroads involved in coal, petroleum coke or crude oil proposals make public any
plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases and that the
railroad provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen groups and local

government officials from [name of community] to seek mutually acceptable ways to address
local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with [name of community] to
account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke;

Require the railroad to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to
date plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or
mechanism available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe
operating practices and transport of materials by rail;

Conduct environmental monitoring in [name of community], including but not limited to

groundwater and air monitoring, and will request that the railroad submit environmental
monitoring or testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years or
until the [name of community] determines that there is no significant environmental impact from
activities conducted by the railroad;

Require the railroad to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts
by drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise providing crossings at
intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and require the railroad to pay in full
for these upgrades;

Write and submit comments to the U.S. Department of Transportations anticipated federal rail
safety rulemaking regulating the shipment of crude by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and support their
efforts;

Work through the California League of Cities, California League of Counties, and other relevant
organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-__________

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS LIKE
CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH [name of community]
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by
rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and federal
agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms of
coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of
Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed
coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to Asia for
the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts;
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.
Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and

WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead - and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and its tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and [add any other local waterways] posing a serious threat to these
ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude, coal and petcoke would pass through [names of community and
neighboring communities; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in any populated area; and

WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
cities; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through [name
of community] and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream
greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the [name of community] City Council opposes using existing rail
lines to transport hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways, through densely populated
areas, through the [name of community], and resolves to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits
or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the [Bay Area, San Joaquin or relevant]Air Quality Management District
demanding public notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with
fossil fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent
substitution of Bakken crude for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public
notification or CEQA review;

Commit to fighting crude oil, coal and petroleum coke transport through [name of community]
utilizing the citys legal staff, working with local stakeholders and other groups, including filing
amicus briefs in support of neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused by
the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through [name of community] by actively
enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes; engaging
in state and federal regulatory processes; and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to [name of community];

Request that railroads involved in coal, petroleum coke or crude oil proposals make public any plans
for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases and that the railroad
provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen groups and local government officials
from [name of community] to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with [name of community] to account
for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke;

Require the railroad to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism

available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Conduct environmental monitoring in [name of community], including but not limited to

groundwater and air monitoring, and will request that the railroad submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years or until the [name of
community] determines that there is no significant environmental impact from activities conducted by
the railroad;

Require the railroad to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts by
drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise providing crossings at
intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and require the railroad to pay in full for
these upgrades;

Write and submit comments to the U.S. Department of Transportations anticipated federal rail safety
rulemaking regulating the shipment of crude by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and support their
efforts;

Work through the California League of Cities, California League of Counties, and other relevant
organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Martin Akel
Help Protect California From Being Overwhelmed By Crude-By-Rail
Sunday, January 25, 2015 1:16:47 PM
Refinery Group Newsletter - Jan. 14, 2015.pdf
ATT1177846.htm

Dear California Government Official:

Attached is the January edition of theMesa Refinery Watch Group newsletter. It
covers topics you should know regarding the 520, 1.5 mile-long crude oil trains
Phillips 66 wishes to bring in and then exit San Luis Obispo County each year
making it their hub for " tar sands " and their self-proclaimed " crude-by-rail
strategy ." This of course affects cities and towns insouthern and
northernCalifornia as wellincluding yours.

Hopefully you'll review the following in this newsletter

Cities BothNorthAndSouthOf SLO Now Officially Recognize The
Dangers Of The Phillips Plan
The Next Step - The Public Hearing In Front Of San Luis Obispo
County's Planning Commission
Cover Story In The New Times Confirms - ThePhillips 66
Project IsNOTAbout Protecting Jobs
Its Non-Stop --MoreDerailments, Crashes, Explosions
What Would A Crude Oil Rail TerminalLook LikeIn SLO County?
Reaffirmation OfAir QualityProblems On The Nipomo Mesa (But
Phillips's Plan Will Increase Them Even Further)
Gotcha! Oil Industry PR Pro WritesCovertLetter In Support Of
Phillips
Feds Considering Making The Monarch Butterfly AnEndangered
Species...ButPhillipss Plan Endangers Them
Thank you forspending timeto further educate yourself about this critical
issue.

Respectfully,
The Mesa Refinery Watch Group

Subject:
Invitation: Legal Options for Coal Exports Through Oakland Army Base ...
@ Fri May 8, 2015 12:15pm - 1pm (jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org)
Location:
Conference Line
Start: Fri 5/8/2015 12:15 PM
End: Fri 5/8/2015 1:00 PM
Show Time As: Tentative
Recurrence:
Organizer:

(none)
Jess Dervin-Ackerman

more details
Legal Options for Coal Exports Through Oakland Army Base call
(866) 501-6174
access code: 1000100#
When
Fri May 8, 2015 12:15pm 1pm Pacific Time
Where
Conference Line (map)
Calendar
jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org
Who

Jess Dervin-Ackerman - organizer

obolotina@oaklandnet.com

cfarmer@oaklandnet.com

igutierrez@earthjustice.org

Don

Jessica Yarnall Loarie

Going? Yes - Maybe - No more options
Invitation from Google Calendar
You are receiving this courtesy email at the account obolotina@oaklandnet.com because you are an attendee of this
event.
To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account
at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and
control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ALONG
CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS,
THROUGH THE EAST BAY, AND BERKELEY
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to
import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from the Dakotas; and
WHEREAS existing rail terminals are securing permits to import Canadian tar sands and
Bakken crude oils without any public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 57
percent during 2013 and this growth will continue to skyrocket if the proposed rail terminals are
permitted and constructed: and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile,
highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS tar sands crude or bitumen is known to be an extremely viscous form of petroleum
that will not flow unless heated or diluted with other lighter hydrocarbons that include toxic
substances, and is known to be extremely difficult to clean up when spills occur especially in
aquatic ecosystems; and
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail,
accompanied by a similar rise in spectacular accidents, nearly 100 in 2013; more crude oil was
spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades, more than 1.15 million
gallons in 2013; and
WHEREAS in July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable Bakken
crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that destroyed dozens of
buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS in July 2010, a tar sands oil pipeline burst and caused more than 1 million gallons
of tar sands crude to flow into Michigans Kalamazoo River, much of which sank to the river
bottom and still remains today after $1 billion in clean-up efforts; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure of shippers to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances
being transported by rail, in particular Bakken crude, and the devastating consequences of a
crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board, as a result of recent catastrophic crude oil
rail accidents, made recommendations to federal agencies to improve rail safety regulations for
the transport of crude oil, including requirements for comprehensive worst-case scenario
emergency response plans and requirements for testing and documenting the physical and
chemical characteristics of hazardous materials being offered for shipment by rail; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile
crude by rail to the State of New York and its citizens by passing Executive Order #125 directing

New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness; and
WHEREAS Albany County, New York, recognizing the hazards associated with the rapid
increase in crude by rail shipments, issued a moratorium on increases at the Port of Albany,
pending a public health investigation; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from crude oil as well as other fossil fuels such as
coal and petcoke will lead to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and
exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary
development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary
inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and
hospital admissions in children; increased rates of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in adults;
increased risk of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes adjacent to
densely populated areas and the San Francisco Bay Estuary and its tributaries, posing a
serious threat to this ecosystem which is considered a biodiversity hotspot, sustaining significant
aquatic and estuarine species and habitat, and is a treasured icon for millions of Bay Area
residents; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes adjacent to
the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, posing a serious threat to the
water supply for most of California; and
WHEREAS hauling crude into California involves traversing some of the most challenging
mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old
steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious
accidents; and
WHEREAS a crude-by-rail project, the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery rail spur extension, is
currently before San Luis Obispo County for approval, and trains delivering crude for this project
would use Union Pacific rail tracks, which follow the Amtrak Capitol Corridor route through the
East Bay and Berkeley; and
WHEREAS other refineries and existing rail terminals have similar projects planned to transport
hazardous crude oil, coal, and petcoke by rail through our cities; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a derailment and spill could have catastrophic effects to any populated area.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council opposes using existing Union
Pacific rail lines to transport hazardous crude along California waterways, through densely
populated areas, through the East Bay and Berkeley, and resolves to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such
as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude as they occur;

File comments as quickly as possible on the Santa Maria project, which is the first that
proposes to bring crude through the Bay Area;


File comments on the DEIR for the Valero crude-by-rail project (Benecia) within the
formal comment period when it is released in March;

Send a letter to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors expressing opposition to the
proposed Phillips 66 Rodeo facility expansion, which is directly linked to the Santa Maria rail
terminal by pipeline and all crude rail terminal expansions proposed at the Countys other
refineries, and send letters to other city and county boards expressing opposition to other
proposed crude by rail terminal facilities;

Write and submit comments to the U.S. Department of Transportations anticipated

federal rail safety rulemaking regulating the shipment of crude by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District requesting public notice
and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail
terminals, including change of use decisions, such as the recent substitution of Bakken crude
for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public notification or CEQA
review;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York
Governor Andrew Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a
comprehensive review of safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to
shipments of volatile crude oil;

Commit to fighting crude oil transport through Berkeley and the East Bay utilizing
Berkeleys legal staff, working with Berkeley stakeholders and other groups, including filing
amicus briefs in support of neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of crude oil through Berkeley by actively enforcing
applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes; engaging in
state and federal regulatory processes; and by actively enforcing applicable federal
environmental statutes delegated to Berkeley;

Request that railroads involved in crude oil and other fossil fuel transport proposals make
public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases and
that the railroad provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen groups and local
government officials from Berkeley to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with Berkeley to account
for the transport of crude oil and other fossil fuels ;

Through the California Public Utility Commission, assure the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Berkeley and other areas that may receive crude by rail
shipments, including detection and mitigation of risks;

Require the railroad to draft road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and require
the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades;

Alert and communicate our opposition to other cities along the transportation route,
support their efforts, and build a coalition;


Work through the California League of Cities and California League of Counties to
articulate opposition;

Alert Alameda County and our State legislative representatives and lobbyists in
Sacramento, and enlist their help;

Lobby our U. S. Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

Vote: All Ayes.

Labor Friendly Community Choice Aggregation

BACKGROUND: A Community Choice Aggregation entity must be evaluated upon the benefits it
provides to Alameda County and its residents
SB-2(X1) Mandates that all customers receive 33% of electricity from Renewable sources by
2020
AB 32 regulations designate certified Renewable Energy sources from which this power comes
The CPUC has created a pathway for Utilities and CCAs to phase in more Renewable energy
CPUC has identified that 12,000 MW of Renewable Energy must be added to reach 33% RPS
These Renewable sources have been built, are being built or are being planned to be built.
These Projects are being built under PLAs, employing Union Members for 600 Million Man hours
California produces the most Renewable Energy in the U.S. and will be one of the largest
producers in the world when the 33% RPS is achieved in 2020
SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION ENTITY MUST:
Procure Power from Union generated sources
Employ unionized customer service representatives
Sign PLAs on each Power Generation Project
Sign PLAs on any Energy Efficiency Projects/Programs that the CCA Operates or signs onto
Sign Community Benefit Agreements to include local projects and local hiring
A Labor Friendly CCA is one that produces additional Renewable Energy and employs local residents
But can that be done?!!
Sadly, the model adopted by the existing CCAs does not contain any of these critical elements.
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY HAS PURSUED A BUSINESS PLAN WHICH REJECTS A LOCAL BASED CCA:

MCE signed Power Procurement contract with Shell Energy North America of Houston, TX and
outsourced its customer service function to Noble Americas, a non-union service provider
In the 5 years MCE has supplied power, most of their electricity has come from out of State,
Non-Union generators. They promised 200MW of new build but havent built a single project.
MCE relies heavily on energy credits, called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
These RECs are not electricity, they are pieces of paper. MCE uses RECs to Greenwash their dirty
fossil fuel (coal/gas) power, instead of investing in renewable energy projects
Recent studies have demonstrated that buying RECs do NOT result in construction of Renewable
Energy projects or even an increase in the amount of Renewable Energy available

Union Members and Alameda County residents want more renewable energy and local renewable
projects. A new Alameda CCA must be good for workers, good for the environment and provide energy
from actual renewable sources that customers can trust.

MARITIME e-NEWS
FEBRUARY 2015

Port of Oakland Updates Operating

Status, Waterfront Labor Talks

Port of Oakland Launches Maritime

Operations Web Portal

The Port of Oakland has released the following update on seaport operations and the status of waterfront labor talks. The report addresses
the significant cargo buildup that has slowed cargo movement on
the U.S. West Coast. It also looks at prospects for a longshore labor
contract settlement or the threat of a coast wide port shutdown.

The Port of Oakland this month launched its newest Web portal to
provide up-to-the-minute maritime operational updates. Visitors can
access the Web portal through a yellow pop-up message on the Port
of Oaklands website home page: www.portofoakland.com
The new Web portal is a response to the prolonged waterfront labor
talks which have created slowdowns along U.S. West coast ports.
The portal provides real-time information in blog format and allows
visitors to receive customized e-mail alerts. The portal also contains
key contact information for marine terminals, terminal operators, rail
operators, and government partners.

This status report can be reproduced, excerpted or posted. For quick,

daily updates on the Ports status, go to www.Portofoakland.com

Status of Port operations

Q: Whats the situation at the Port of Oakland?
A: The Port of Oakland, like other major West Coast container
seaports, is facing a significant cargo buildup. Between 15 and 20
vessels a day await berths at its marine terminals. Vessels are arriving
late and off-schedule due to delays at previous stops in Southern California. Ships wait days for berths. Cargo movement inside terminals
has slowed down. Truck drivers sometimes wait hours to collect containerized imports for delivery. Cargo can be delayed days in reaching
final destination.

The Port of Oaklands new Web portal was specifically designed with
the Ports customers and business partners in mind. Check the portal
daily for status updates on port operations and labor-management
negotiations.
Q: Is there a lockout at Oakland or other West Coast ports?
A: No. Employers at West Coast ports suspended vessel loading
and unloading Feb. 78 and again Feb. 12 and Feb. 1416 to clear
container yards.

Q: Whats causing the buildup?

A: An impasse between waterfront employers and longshore labor
has led to disruptions, slowdowns and reduced port productivity.
Other contributing factors include:
U.S. import volumes have increased with the strengthening
economy;
The introduction of megaships has strained the ability of ports
especially in Southern Californiato efficiently handle cargo;
Chassis, the truck trailers used to haul containers on the highway, are in short supply;
Through much of last fall, shippers diverted a significant amount
of cargo to Oakland to avoid port congestion in Los Angeles and
Long Beach;
Late-arriving vessels from Southern California are undermining
berthing schedules.

Consequences of cargo buildup and labor impasse

Q: Whos being hurt by the labor impasse and cargo buildup?

A: Congestion in Southern California emerged in the late summer of

2014. The buildup in Oakland began in late November.

A: The impact is felt worldwide. Global supply chainsespecially

between Asia and the U.S.have been disrupted. Multinational companies are reporting lost revenue and increased costs because they
cant get products from overseas sources to markets or manufacturing centers. But the real impact is closer to home. Small business
owners are unable to get goods on the shelf in time for long-planned
merchandising programs. Some are paying high premiums for workarounds such as airfreight. Manufacturers are at risk of closing down
assembly lines because they dont receive parts shipments. Californias Central Valley growers cant get perishable agricultural exports
through the marine terminals quickly and onto ships for delivery to
overseas markets. Thousands of independent harbor truckers are
doing less businessand receiving less paybecause theyre often
stranded in long lines awaiting cargo. Businesses are beginning to
furlough workers because their operations are stymied by cargo
delays.

Q: Is this only affecting Oakland?

Q: What is this situation doing to the Port?

A: No, all West Coast ports are affected by these issues. The ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach are facing extreme congestion.

A: The labor impasse and cargo buildup jeopardize the credibility

and standing of West Coast ports. Shippers and ocean carriers are

Q: How long has this been going on?

continues

losing confidence in the reliability of the ports. Theyre diverting

cargo to other gateways in Canada, Mexico or through the Panama
and Suez canals to the U.S. East Coast. Some vessels are temporarily
bypassing Oakland because theyre behind schedule after Southern
California calls.

Terminal Status Update

Q: Whats the financial impact to the Port?

Those are questions shippers, truckers and carriers want answered in

the wake of the PMA-ILWU dispute. One thing is apparent already: relief from months of diminished productivity isnt coming immediately.

Whats next in the ongoing negotiations over a new contract for the
West Coast waterfront? Will President Obamas labor secretary break
the impasse? Will terminal disruptions come to an end? Or will ports
end up in gridlock and shut down?

A: Its too soon to say. If this is a short-lived phenomenon, therell be

no lasting impact. But there is a long-term risk of job loss. If significant cargo declines become a permanent fixture on the West Coast,
thousands of jobs will be in jeopardy.

Even if agreement is reached on a new contract, port officials

estimate it will take 6-to-8 weeks to eliminate the cargo buildup at
Oakland marine terminals. That means long lines; slow turn-times and
vessels anchored in San Francisco Bay wont go away overnight. On
the other hand, if cargo operations are shut down on the West Coast,
the impact will be felt for months.

Q: Is there no recourse for shippersespecially small businesses

damaged by this impasse?
A: Shippers can talk to the ocean carries they contract with or the
marine terminal where their cargo is stored.

Heres the current situation in Oakland: four-to-six vessels anchor

daily in San Francisco Bay awaiting berths. Another 10-to-12 hover
outside the Golden Gate. Some vessels are temporarily omitting calls
here to make up time lost by delays in Southern California. Once
ports down south improve operations, off-schedule Oakland vessel
arrivals should diminish. All of this should improve berth planning.

Q: Cant the Port help them?

A: The Port doesnt manage terminal operations or the movement
of shippers cargo. It works with terminal operators to mitigate the
impact of the cargo buildup.

Gate lines: On most days, at most terminals, the wait is 45 minutes-to

1 hour outside the gate. That doesnt mean waits of more than an
hour are a thing of the past. Waits of several hours still occur at one
or two terminals.
Turn-times: These continue to vary among terminals. Waits of several
hours to transact business inside the gates have not been uncommon. What will it take to improve the situation? Its complicated, but
heres a list of requirements:
More chassis inside the terminals; theyve bunched up outside;
Use of express lanes; several terminals have designated areas for
quick resolution of simple trucker transactions;
Use of appointment systems available in some terminals;
Use of weekend gates;
Greater efficiency and productivity.

Status of waterfront labor negotiations

Q: Whos involved in the labor negotiations?

Productivity: Throughout the labor impasse and cargo buildup, Port

of Oakland vessel productivity has remained tops on the West Coast.
Thats the good news. The bad news: it is still down from peak levels.

A: The Pacific Maritime Association is the group of ocean carriers

and marine terminal operators that hires longshore labor on the West
Coast. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union represents
dockworkers, marine clerks and others who work at the ports. The
two sides are negotiating a new contract. President Obama has
instructed the U.S. Secretary of Labor to talk to both sides.

Cargo volume: The cargo run-up to Lunar New Year has ended.
Container volume is moderating.
Communications: The Port of Oakland will continue to distribute
daily status updates summarizing vessel and yard activity and gate
waits until a settlement is reached and the cargo backlog is cleared.

Q: Whats the hang-up on the labor front?

A: The last contract expired in July of 2014. Labor and management
have operated without a contract since then. After months without
reaching agreement on a new deal, both sides requested the participation of a federal mediator. Still, no agreement has been reached.

Long-term: Settlement of the labor impasse wont eliminate all

supply chain problems at West Coast ports. Port of Oakland officials
are examining operating models at other ports in search of ways to
accelerate cargo movement. Better use of weekend gates, incentives
for off-peak moves and improved appointment procedures are among
the ideas under consideration.

Q:What are the issues holding up agreement?

A:Neither side shares much detail about the negotiations. Traditionally, waterfront negotiations have involved issues of jurisdiction,
compensation, benefits and the use of technology on the waterfront.
Reports indicate that the right to dismiss appointed arbitrators for
waterfront labor disputes has emerged as an issue.
continues

Oakland Army Base

Q: Why doesnt the mediator force a settlement?

A: The mediator can only facilitate discussion toward agreement.
Theres no prescribed power to enforce a settlement.

A global logistics hub envisioned for Oaklands decommissioned army

base has taken a big step forward. The Port of Oakland and Union
Pacific Railroad started construction last month to link the site with
UPs main line.

Q: Whats the consequence of the impasse?

A: Management-labor disputes have led to terminal disruptions,
sporadic suspension of operations, declining productivity and a slowdown in the movement of cargo.
Q: Why doesnt the government step in?

Connecting the Oakland Army Base to the national rail network is

a milestone for us, said Chris Chan, the Ports Engineering Director.
To be successful, we must have good rail access.
The $25 million project is financed by the Port of Oakland and the
California Transportation Commissions Trade Corridors Improvement
Fund. Its part of a $100 million Port effort to significantly expand
Oakland rail capacity. A 7,400-foot lead track and the reconfiguration
of adjacent tracks should be completed in October. Once finished, the
Port will be better positioned to receive bulk rail shipments at the
former army base from Union Pacific and BNSF railroads.

A: Theres no legislative authority for government to intervene when

the two sides arent working under contract.
Q: Why doesnt the Port of Oakland step in?
A: The Port of Oakland doesnt hire longshore labor or manage
terminals. Its not part of the negotiating process.
Q: Cant anyone solve this labor situation?

The Port and City of Oakland expect to transform Trans-Pacific supply

chains at the 360-acre former army base logistics center. Located on
the Ports Outer Harbor, it would include warehousing, trans-load
facilities and a dry-bulk cargo terminal. Heres how it could change
the way exports are moved:

A: Its up to the negotiating parties to reach an agreement. Pressure from the public directed at lawmakers could help influence an
outcome but so far there has been no politically inspired settlement
effort.

Port of Oaklands role

Bulk shipments of commodities such as Midwest grain and beef

could be delivered to Oakland by rail, trans-loaded into containers at the Port, and then exported via Asia-bound container
vessels.
Bulk shipments of other commodities could also travel to Oakland by rail. They would be loaded onto bulk vessels at a new
dry-bulk shipping terminal and exported to Asia.

Q: What part does the Port of Oakland play in resolving the labor
dispute and cargo backlog?
A: The Port of Oakland is a landlord. It leases facilities to operators
who manage marine terminals, contract with shipping lines and hire
longshore labor. The Port doesnt hire dockworkers and has no role in
the labor negotiations. Likewise the Port doesnt oversee terminal operations. Its the Ports responsibility to provide safe, efficient facilities
and support maritime interests in moving cargo

Union Pacific will manage construction of the army base rail link
within its own property. The railroad has hired Oakland-based
McGuire & Hester for a significant portion of the work. The Port has
emphasized use of local contractors since construction began at the
former army base in 2013.

Q: Is the seaport the only business of the Port of Oakland?

A: No. The Port of Oakland also manages Oakland International
Airport and more than 20 miles of commercial real estate on the
citys waterfront. The real estate holdings include historic Jack London
Square.

Click here for aerial photos of the Oakland Army base rail project:
http://bit.ly/15eSvvS

Q: Is the Port doing anything about the labor issue and the backlog?
A: Yes. The Port has advocated publicly for a settlement of the
contract dispute. Its in daily contact with labor and management to
understand the issues. Its working daily with terminal operators and
shippers to mitigate the impacts of the dispute.
Q: What steps has the Port taken?
A: The Port has worked with terminal operators on extraordinary
measures that include:

Weekend gates
Express lanes in terminals
Additional parking for trucks and containers
Daily status updates for shippers and their truckers

Q: Whats the Port of Oaklands stand on the labor impasse?

A: The Port of Oakland issued the following statement Feb. 4: The
West Coast waterfront labor impasse needs to be settled... quickly.
Importers and exporters are suffering significant cargo delays. Central
Valley farmers cant ship their produce. Small business owners cant

Oakland and other West Coast ports move

ahead with expansion plans
Logistics Management

continues

get goods to put on the shelf. Harbor truckers cant do their jobs.
Everyone is suffering. If the situation, worsens... if West Coast ports
shut down, the U.S. economy and the global supply chain will be
jeopardized. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 73,000 jobs that depend
on the Port of Oakland will be at risk. The impasse is good for no one.
It is time to reach agreement on a new contract and put the disruptions and delays behind us.

Port of Oakland Cargo Volume Declined in

January

Outlook for West Coast ports

The Port attributed the decline to slowdowns arising from a dispute

between dockworkers and employers over a new contract. Port
operations at 29 West Coast ports have been affected by the impasse,
now entering its ninth month. With a decline in productivity and
a breakdown in vessel schedules at all U.S. West Coast ports, cargo
volumes are far from normal, said Port of Oakland Maritime Director
John Driscoll.

Port of Oakland cargo volume declined dramatically in January, the

result of an ongoing West Coast waterfront labor dispute. The Port
reported this week that containerized imports were down 39% from
January 2014. Exports declined 26%. Total volume was off 32%.

Q: How much longer can this impasse go on?

A: There is no legislative or regulatory prescription for a settlement.
The two sides have already been talking for nine months and still,
theres no agreement. But recently the management negotiating
group has said ports are nearing gridlock which could bring operations to a halt.

The Port said importers have begun diverting containerized cargo to

gateways outside the U.S. West Coast. These include ports in Canada,
Mexico and the U.S. East Coast. It added that exporters have been
challenged in shipping cargo to overseas markets because of vessel
delays and diversions.

Q: Will there be a strike or shutdown at the Port?

A: Thats up to the two sides negotiating for a new contract. Labor
spokesmen have said the parties are close to agreement. Management has said West Coast ports are near gridlock which will soon
result in a shutdown.
Q: If the dispute was settled, would ports go back to normal operations and cargo delays end?

The Port of Oakland is a garden of

opportunity

A: Maritime officials estimate it could take four weeks after a contract agreement to clear out the cargo backlog on the West Coast.

KTVU Oakland

Q: What are the immediate risks associated with a Port shutdown?

Air Quality Video

A:

The Port of Oakland is taking a big step forward in curbing pollution

from harbor trucks. Thats the view of two experts discussing the
Ports air quality efforts in a new video released this month. Its available here at http://youtu.be/9YGZl3S8Zuk.

A coast wide work stoppage would disrupt supply chains and

bring cargo movement to a halt;
Tens of thousands of workers, from truckers and longshore labor
to railroaderscould lose jobs;
Factories could shut down;
Californias agricultural economy could be jeopardized;
Small business owners could be forced to shutter their companies;
Independent owner-operators could default on payments for
their trucks;
Consumers could find goods in short supply;

Prof. Robert Harley, University of California, Berkeley, says rigs hauling

containerized cargo in Oakland are newer and cleaner. Washington
Burns, M.D., says this is helping Port neighbors cope with respiratory
illness.
This is a big step forward, says Dr. Burns, director of the West
Oakland Asthma Coalition. The Port said theyd reduce air pollution
and theyre doing it.
The comments follow a study from the University of California,
Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released last
December. Prof. Harley and fellow researchers discovered dramatic
reductions in harbor truck pollution. The improvements are linked to
a Port of Oakland program that has modernized the truck fleet.

Q: What are the long-term risks?

A:
Shippers could abandon West Coast ports for other U.S. gateways;
More than 70,000 Bay Area workers depend on the Port of Oakland for jobs and many of those jobs could be affected;
The U.S. consumer economy, which is based on low-cost sourcing
of goods from Asia, could be undermined.

The study determined that from 2009 to 2013:

The mean emission rate from diesel trucks operating at the Port
declined 76% for black carbon, a major component of diesel
particulate matter and a pollutant linked to global warming.
The average emission rate for nitrogen oxides, which leads to
the formation of ozone and additional particulate matter, went
down 53%.

The Port of Oakland is particularly important

for poultry exports
Capital Press

Thousands of diesel trucks call at the Port of Oakland annually hauling containerized imports and exports.

Bird Rescue

Dredging

Twenty healthy seabirds endangered by mysterious San Francisco Bay goo were released
at the Port of Oakland this month.

Ships hate mud. Birds, on the other hand, love it. A four-month project at the Port of Oakland
has addressed both ends of the spectrum.

Its always a big day for us, said Russ Curtis of International Bird Rescue, a Fairfield,
Ca.-based nonprofit. Our reward is seeing
these beautiful, clean birds returned to their
natural habitat in good health.
The birds are part of a flock of 330 rescued
by the organization since January. All were
taken from the Bay with unidentified goo
that robs waterfowl of their natural insulation. More than 150 were found dead,
covered in goo. Another 132 are still being
treated. The rest have been returned to the
wild.
The release took place at the Port of Oaklands Middle Harbor Shoreline Park. Rescuers said they selected the location because
of its beauty, protected cove and proximity
to the Bay. The Port worked with community
and public agency partners to design and
build the park as an ecological reserve for
endangered birds and aquatic life.
Port employees assisted International Bird
Rescue volunteers in setting the birds free.
Were pleased to play a small part in this
saga, but the real heroes are the staff and
volunteers of International Bird Rescue who
have saved so many seabirds, said Richard
Sinkoff, the Port of Oaklands Director of
Environmental Programs and Planning.
Each bird was medically stabilized at International Bird Rescue, cleaned with baking soda
and vinegar and finally, Dawn detergent. The
organization said there have been no new
cases of soiled birds since Jan 22.
Attempts to find the source of the mystery
goo have been unsuccessful.

According to the Port, 400,000 cubic yards of San Francisco Bay mud have been extracted
from an adjacent ship channel since August. All of the material was deposited on a former
wetland bordering nearby Suisun Bay. The upshot: ships wont get stuck in the mud. But birds
along the Pacific Flyway may get a refreshed habitat.
Dredging is not glamorous, said Chris Chan, the Port of Oaklands Engineering Director.
But its essential if were going to keep bringing big ships into Oakland, and gratifying when
its environmentally sustainable.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finished dredging 870 acres of Bay floor in January. The
work cleaned up a 50-foot-deep channel leading massive container ships into 50-foot-deep
berths at the Port. Thats the desired clearance for thousand-foot-long vessels that could carry
up to 14,000 20-foot cargo containers.
The Corps challenge: finding beneficial use of the residueriver-borne sediment and shifting
sands that sweep in with the tide. The answer in this case: the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project. Barges transported all of the dredged material 52 nautical miles northeast to
this 2,400-acre marsh on Suisun Bay. Under regulations governing the Port, only 80% must
actually be reclaimed.
Privately owned Montezuma Wetlands LLC is overseeing a project to restore the marsh with
1.75 million cubic yards of fill. The goal is to restore the sites original surface height. The
Montezuma Wetlands have subsided 10 feet since being diked and drained a century ago.
With a fresh topcoat, the wetlands should provide a more inviting habitat for shorebirds and
other wildlife.
Dredging to keep navigational channels clear is an annual task at the Port of Oakland. Federal
funds cover most of the cost that in 2015 will reach $21 million. The San Francisco Bay Areas
congressional delegation, led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), has been a longtime supporter
of federal funding for Port dredging.

They Said It
In April 2009 the Port of Oakland aimed at an 85% reduction
in diesel particulates by the year 2020. Now a study has
illustrated exactly how well the targets are being met.
Handy Shipping Guide

The Port of Oakland has been severely impacted by

congestion at the Southern California ports.
American Shipper

Oakland is both benefiting and hurting from the continuing

gridlock in Southern California
Journal of Commerce

Subject:

Meeting about Coal

Start: Fri 6/12/2015 10:30 AM

End: Fri 6/12/2015 11:30 AM
Recurrence:

(none)

Meeting Status: Meeting organizer

Organizer:

Kalb, Dan

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Ron Schalow
undisclosed-recipients
New Death Count Projections for Bakken Oil Train Disasters?
Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:19:11 PM

Firefighters, Emergency Personnel, Lawmakers, and Media:

Last June (2014), North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple called disaster
agencies and emergencypersonneltogether for a "tabletop exercise" to
practice a response to a possible Bakken oil train derailment, and the
subsequent explosions.They estimated there would bemore than 60
deathsif such an incident occurred in Bismarck, ND (65,000 pop.) or
Fargo, ND (110,000 pop.).
http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/19629/
http://news.prairiepublic.org/post/inside-energy-making-bakken-oil-safer
I don't know the times, locations, or other variables, in the exercise
calculations, but I can envision places in Bismarck and Fargo where the
death count might be zero at certain times of the day. I could also think
of cases, especially in downtown Fargo, whenthousands would be in
the blast zone.
There were47 deaths in Lac-Megantic(6,000 pop.) after a Bakken oil
train derailed on July 6, 2013. Dozens of downtown buildings were
incinerated, but due to the late hour, most of the people who died were
assembled at one place of business.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lacm%C3%A9gantic+train+derailment&qpvt=lacm%C3%A9gantic+train+derailment&FORM=VDRE
Then, on December 9th, 2014, all three North Dakota Industrial
Commission members signed Order No. 25417.
http://www.nd.gov/ndic/ic-press/dmr-order25417.pdf
This order will bring every barrel of Bakken crude within standards to
improve the safety of oil for transport, said Governor Jack Dalrymple,
Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Agriculture Commissioner Doug
Goehring, in a joint statement.
Considering the improved safety, North Dakota officials should have
updated projections of fatalities for Fargo and Bismarck. They would
know the June variables and the change in composition of the contents of
the tanker cars, due to the new Order. You could extrapolate the
information to predict the deaths and damage for your community.
What'sthe new number forcasualties?These people should know...
North Dakota Industrial Commission

701-328-3722
ndicinfo@nd.gov
Governor Dalrymple's Chief of Staff
Ron Rauschenberger
701-328-2222
rrausche@nd.gov
Governor Dalrymple's Director and Policy Advisor
Jeff Zent
701-328-2424
jlzent@nd.gov
Lynn D. Helms, Director
Department of Mineral Resources
701-328-8020
lhelms@nd.gov
Oil and Gas Division
701-328-8020
oilandgasinfo@nd.gov
North Dakota Department of Emergency Services
701-328-8100
nddes@nd.gov
Cass County (Fargo) Emergency Management
Dave Rogness
701-476-4065
rognessd@casscountynd.gov
Fargo Fire Department
Steve Dirksen Fire Chief
701-241-1540
sdirksen@cityoffargo.com
Burleigh County (Bismarck) Emergency Management and Homeland
Security
Mary H. Senger Emergency Manager
701-222-6727
msenger@nd.gov
Bismarck Emergency Management Division
Gary Stockert Emergency Manager
701-221-6804
gstockert@bismarcknd.gov
Bismarck Fire Department

Joel Boespflug Chief

jboespfl@bismarcknd.gov

What Do Oil Train Explosions Cost?

And why cities and towns would have to pay the damages.
Eric de Place (@Eric_deP) on December 18, 2014 at 6:30 am

Given the nasty tendency for oil trains to explode when they derail, its probably worth asking what
a catastrophic accident might cost. No doubt, the thousands of communities visited daily by oil
trains would like to know what sort of financial risks they are exposed to. Unfortunately for these
governments, the available data suggest that a reasonable worst-case-scenario explosion could do
several billion dollars of damagesums far in excess of railroad insurance coverage.
But how many billions are we talking about?
It doesnt help that the most obvious place to look for damage cost estimates is also the least
helpful: the federal governments own databases. Railroads file their own reports on accidents that
cause a hazardous material release, but the numbers are not useful. In the draft July 2014 Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) that accompanied the proposed rules for oil and ethanol trains, the US Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) acknowledged that its hazardous material
incident report database often contains inaccuracies. The agency believes that response costs and
basic cleanup costs, when they are reported, do not represent the full costs of an accident or the
response.Its a surprisingly difficult question to answer with any real precision. The widespread
deployment of unit trains loaded with crude oil is such a recent phenomenon that there is not a lot of
history to guide estimates of accident costs. The recent oil train accidents in Lac-Mgantic, Quebec,
and Lynchburg, Virginia, are commonly used as guideposts, but officials are still cleaning up these
accidents and assessing the damages, so the accounting remains incomplete. For a sharper picture,
you have to examine other sources: things like lawsuits against railroads that have released hazardous
materials; insurers estimates for comparable events like terrorist attacks; and estimates used by
federal regulators for the cost-benefit analysis they must do in tandem with their proposed oil train
rules.
Moreover, initial incident reports are frequently not updated by the railroad. For example, in the case
of the November 2013 oil train explosion in Aliceville, Alabama, PHSMA notes that the initial
estimate of crude oil lost was 28,000 gallons. After a follow-up inquiry from PHMSA personnel, the
carrier has revised this estimate to more than 450,000 gallons. And subsequent reporting put the
total lost at 630,000 gallonsmore than 22 times the original filing.
The most direct comparison is the Lac-Mgantic accident because it was the first major oil train
explosion in a populated area. It killed 47 people. City officials estimate that it will cost $2.7 billion

to rebuild the broken village over the next decade. The tank cars released 1.6 million gallons of
crude oil, of which about 26,000 gallons went into the nearby Chaudeiere River. The city estimates
that the accident contaminated 12.3 million gallons of sewer, lake, and ground water, which will cost
$200 million in apparently additional money to clean up. The potentially liable partiesthe railroads,
oil shippers, tank car lessors, and federal regulatorsare being sued by the victims, as well as by
each other to determine who is at faultand who will pay. Until there is a settlement, we wont have
the final tabulation for the damages.
The 2014 Lynchburg derailment offers another set of clues. PHMSA, in its Regulatory Impact Analysis,
estimated that based on the Lynchburg derailment, your basic run-of-the-mill oil train explosion with
no loss of life will probably set you back around $300 per gallon for property damage, remediation,
and cleanup costs.
Yet the Lynchburg figure is very likely too low for estimating potential future costs. In commentsthey
submitted on the federal governments proposed oil and ethanol train regulations, EarthJustice and
Forest Ethics explain:The railroad responsible, CSX, reported to the Federal Railroad Administration
that the emergency response and cleanup costs for that incident ran to $8.99 million. (Of this $8.99
million cost, an estimated $5 million was due to environmental damage.) PHSMA used the railroads
reported costs together with its own estimate of 30,000 gallons spilled, to come up with their $300
per gallon estimate.
First, the [National Transportation Safety Board] investigation has not yet
been completed for [Lynchburg], and the clean-up is still underway. The full
extent of the potential and actual harm is likely to increase as both the
investigation and clean-up progress. Second, it has been reported that the
Lynchburg derailment involved primarily CPC-1232 tank cars, which are less
prone to puncture and spilling oil than DOT-111s. An accident involving
[legacy] DOT-111 tank cars, given their fragility, would almost certainly spill
more oil and cause greater harm and therefore result in a higher per gallon
cost. Third, while the Lynchburg accident caused serious contamination of
the James River, it would have been far worse had a derailed tank car
landed on the town side of the tracks during a busy lunchtime instead of in
the river.
In the same draft RIA cost-benefit analysis, PHMSA also estimated upper-end damages for an oil train
derailment causing a higher consequence event in an area of average population density along a
train route. (By PHMSAs reckoning, 141 people per half square kilometer is average; its just a bit
more than the small town of Lac Mgantic with its 136 people per half square kilometer.) The agency
pegged those costs at $1 billion for lives lost, property ruined, and the cleanup. If the event takes
place in an area five times as dense, as in an urban center, PHSMA said the event would produce
roughly $5 billion in total damages.
Yet this method, too, may severely understate the actual costs. PHSMAs math relies on a little-

known technical variable, the Value of Statistical Life (VSL), which in 2014 is calculated at $9.2
million based on expected average lifetime income. Consider that the family of Zoila Tellez, killed at
the scene of a 2009 ethanol train explosion in Cherry Valley, Illinois, settled a lawsuit with the
Canadian National railroad for $22.5 million 2.5 times greater than the value used by PHSMA for its
estimates.
In June 2005, two Norfolk Southern trains crashed into each other in Graniteville, North Carolina. A
single tank car of chlorine ruptured and released enough material to kill 9 people, injure 554, and
force the evacuation of 5,400 others. According to a recent law review article, The railroad settled
a class-action lawsuit with the 5,400 people displaced by the accident, agreeing to pay $2,000 to
every household within a one-mile radius for inconvenience and $200 per day for each person kept
away from his or her home during the cleanup effort.Legal settlements like the Cherry Valley case
are another way to estimate the potential costs of an oil train explosion. We can examine rail
accidents that resulted in the release of Toxic Inhalation Hazard materials like chlorine where
railroads were successfully sued for damages. In the business, these are considered something like
nightmare scenarios because they can affect large areas and therefore large numbers of people. They
are probably not directly comparable to an oil train derailment, but the associated settlement
payments are relevant.
A textile plant, Avondale Mills, was located near the scene of the accident and several mill workers
were among those killed. The accident was the final straw. Already struggling against global
competition, the disruption proved insurmountable and the firm laid off 4,000 workers. Avondale
then brought suit against the railroad, seeking over $450 million. After four weeks of trial, the parties
settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.
In another case, a CSX tank car in a New Orleans railyard burst into flames, releasing a poisonous gas
from a volatile compound used to make synthetic rubber. A Louisiana jury awarded $3.5 billion in
punitive damages to 8,000 residents affected by fire. In 1997, after a decade of appeals,
CSX settled the case for $850 million.
Another way to ballpark oil train explosion costs is with numbers that the railroads themselves
sometimes use. A damage assessment report prepared in 2006 by the American Academy of Actuaries
for the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets analyzes terrorism risk. (Railroads cite this
report when attempting to convince regulators they need special tariffs or protection from the
potential financial ruin caused by the enormous uninsured damages from an accident involving
hazardous material like chlorine.) The Actuaries group ran through several scenarios of insured loss
estimates in variously sized cities. They pegged these numbers for the closest analogy, a truck bomb,
at $3 billion for Des Moines, $8.8 billion for San Francisco, and $11.8 billion if the incident occurred
in New York City.
We can say with some confidence that if the loaded oil trains that went off the rails near downtown
Seattle or Philadelphia had exploded, the damage could have ranged well into the billions. Given that
the Lac-Megantic oil train inferno cost at least $2.7 billion and experts ballpark a Des Moines truck

bomb at $3 billion, its fair to believe that an explosion in a bigger city could cost much more
perhaps something on the order of $5 billion that PHMSA estimates. When the railroads insist on
running loaded oil trains past sports stadiums on game night or through the heart of cites
during major festivals, its especially problematic that they do not carry insurance proportional to the
risks they introduce.

The under-insurance problem is bad enough in cities like Spokane and Portland
that sit alongside the major railroads that carry perhaps $1 billion in insurance. In
places like Grays Harbor, Washington, or Clatskanie, Oregon, served by railroads
owned by a short line railroad-holding company, the paltry $500 million or so they
carry in insurance coverage could almost be a joke. Except that theres really
nothing funny about it.
http://daily.sightline.org/2014/12/18/what-do-oil-train-explosions-cost/

North Dakota's Meaningless New Bakken Oil

Regulations Will Keep Bomb Trains Rolling
ByJustin Mikulka--New regulations purported to make Bakken crude safer for
transport instead allow business as usual for the oil and rail industries moving explosive
Bakken crude oil in unsafeDOT -111 railcars.
Theregulations announced Tuesday by the North Dakota Industrial Commissionstate
that: The goal is to produce crude oil that does not exceed a vapor pressure of 13.7
pounds per square inch(psi).
There are two important things to note about this goal.
The first is that the vapor pressure of the oil that exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec,
resulting in the death of 47 people, was under 10 psi and was described as beingas
volatile as gasoline.So the new regulations will permit oil that is significantly more
volatile than the oil in the Lac-Megantic disaster to continue to be shipped byrail.
The second important thing to note is that almost all of the oil that the industry and
regulators have sampled in the past year has been well below 13.7 psi. Of 99 samples
taken in thePipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrations sampling study, 94
were below 13.7 psi and the average psi for that study was 12.3psi.
In the industry-funded study by the American Fuel&Petrochemical Manufacturers, the
average vapor pressure was 7.83 psi. In the study funded by theNorth Dakota Petroleum
Council, the average vapor pressure was 11.5psi.
So the reality is that based on the sampling of data from three studies of Bakken crude
oil, most of the oil is both above the vapor pressure of the oil at Lac-Megantic and well
below the newstandard.

North Dakota State Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms admitted this when he told
theStar Tribunethat about 80 percent of North Dakota crude already falls well below
the proposedstandard.
Of course the sampling techniques in theindustry-funded studies are suspectand it is
known that you can purposely get lower values if you use certain sampling techniques.
The regulations state simply that the tests of the crude oil must be performed by a
person sufficiently trained to perform thetest.
TheBismark Tribunereports that this is a concession to industry from the earlier
proposed regulations that would have required independent laboratory testing. The tests
that will be conducted by sufficiently trained oil company employees are only required to
be donequarterly.
Essentially the new regulations give a green light to the industry to continue doing
business as usual, shipping explosive oil. Nothing in the new regulations would have
changed the outcome of the Lac-Megantic disaster. The bomb trains will keeprolling.
As if that wasnt worrying enough, there is one very interesting and troubling part of the
regulations buried near the end of the document releasedyesterday.
(3) The following practices are herebyprohibited:
(a) Blending crude oil produced from the Bakken Petroleum System with
liquids recovered from gas pipelines prior to custody transfer;and
(b) Blending crude oil produced from the Bakken Petroleum System with
natural gas liquids (i.e. condensate, pentanes, butanes, or propane) prior to
custodytransfer.

What this new regulation implies is that the North Dakota Industrial Commission is aware
that Bakken producers have not only been shipping dangerous oil that has high levels of
natural gas liquids (NGLs), such as butane, that are part of the crude oil mixture as it
comes out of the ground but that they have been actively adding such explosiveNGLs to
the oil prior to shipping it byrail.
Why would they do this? Money.
The natural gas liquids are valuable, which is why the industry has been fighting any real
regulations that would require them to remove theNGLs and significantly reduce the
vapor pressure of the crudeoil.
The value of theseNGLs was made clear by Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota
Petroleum Council toReutersin the past week when he was making his case for no new
regulations by saying, Don't devalue that quality North Dakota Bakkenbarrel.
A similar statement was made in testimony to the North Dakota Industrial Commission
about the proposed regulations byTony Lucero of oil producer Enerpluswho said: The
flammable characteristics of our product are actually a big piece of why this product is so

valuable. That is why we can make these very valuable products like gasoline and
jetfuel.
This point was made again in an article in the Wall Street Journal last week
when PBF Refinery manager Jos Dominguez said, The Bakken crude contains a lot of
butane, making it volatile butuseful.
So it is clear that the industry likes to have butane in the Bakken crude mixtures they are
sending by rail to refineries. And based on the new regulations, apparently there has been
an industry practice of addingNGLs into the oil prior to shipment, making the cargo even
more dangerous. So much for the industry claimingsafety is its toppriority.
Earlier in the process of arriving at the new North Dakota regulations, Helms tried to
convince citizens this was an impartial process and that the commission was just
concerned aboutsafety.
We're trying to achieve a set of operating practices that generates a safe, reliable crude
oil, whichever way you choose, Helmstold Reuters. We, at this point, don't want to pick
winners andlosers.
But that is exactly what they have done. The winners and losers have been picked. The
members of the industrial commission, who all were elected with large amounts of
donations from the oil industry, are winners. And of course the oil industry itself is the
real winner. As for the losers, that would be the millions of people located in thebomb
train blast zonesalong therailways.

The oil industry can rest easy knowing that the Bakken crude has not
been devalued. The same cant be said for the lives of those at risk of
the next bomb train disaster that remains inevitable with the continuing
lack of realregulations.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/11/north-dakota-s-meaninglessnew-regulations-will-keep-bomb-trains-rolling
Ron Schalow
Fargo, North Dakota
The Coalition for Bakken Crude Oil Stabilization

From:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Karen Hester
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
Chia; Jerry Wachtel; Margaret Gordon; Kalb, Dan; Bolotina, Olga; Luby, Oliver; Wald, Zachary
No Coal in Oakland Protest (against Tagami) on Thurs 8:30am/Rotunda Building!
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:28:12 PM

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: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:35 PM
To: 'Jay Carmona'; 'Ophir Bruck'
Cc: 'taylorsmiley5@gmail.com'; 'Jess Dervin-Ackerman'
Subject:
Oakland Divestment and Crude Oil by rail resolutions
Attachments: Fossil Fuel Divestment_Oakland Resolution and Report_1394666.pdf;
Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland Resolution_1383417_1_FINAL.pdf
Hello,
Good talking to both of you today!
Here are the details for both Resolutions. Thank you for your help!
July 10th schedule:
*
The Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution comes to the Finance and Management committee
starts at 9:15am (earlier than usual) in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor this item is
second to last on the agenda. Please see the full resolution and the report here
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report_Divestment.pdf Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319620&GUID=94125F85-78D4-46EBBB5B-B1B0332A6181&Options=info|&Search=
*
Oil, Petcoke, Cole by Rail Resolution comes to the Public Works Committee starts at 11:30am
in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor
Please see the full resolution here:
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report%20(4)_Rail%20Transport.pdf
Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319613&GUID=EC6E51C4-F375-414BA717-D035A05510B6&Options=info|&Search=
People who want to come and speak at one or both committees need to feel out a speaker card in
person before each item starts or on line at
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/SpeakerCard/OAK032373
Please see more information for speakers here:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/index.htm
Please call/email me with any questions. Thank you so much!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No. ____________________C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS LYNETTE GIBSON MCELHANEY, DAN KALB,
AND PRO TEM REBECCA KAPLAN

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL

MATERIALS LIKE CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE ALONG CALIFORNIA
WATERWAYS, THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE CITY OF
OAKLAND.
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by
rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and federal
agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms of
coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of
Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed
coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to Asia for
the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts;

WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.
Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River Basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead - and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and

WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary, the Oakland waterfront, and its tributaries and routes adjacent to
the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to
Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridgel fuels, must be analyzed; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel Oaklands existing train lines, which
pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands
history, have been exposed to significant environmental harm for industrial and commercial purposes; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic, Lynchburg Virginia, or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic environmental,
infrastructural, and economic effects in our urban community and along our commercial and recreational
waterfronts; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend years in litigation over
damages as strategy to undercut payments or deflect blame; and
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through
California cities; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through Oakland
other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts of
these fossil fuels must be analyzed; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to transport
hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways and natural habitats through densely populated
areas, through the City of Oakland, The Port of Oakland, and critical water and electric resources, and resolves
to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits
or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District demanding public notice and CEQA
review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail terminals, or port
facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent substitution of Bakken crude for
ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public notification or CEQA review;

Actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes
+ OLGAs LANGUAGE

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request that railroads involved in coal, petroleum coke or
crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic
volume increases and that the railroad provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local
concerns;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require the railroad to update their emergency response plans
with the City of Oakland to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the
potential emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Urge the rail operators to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism
available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require rail operators to conduct environmental monitoring in
Oakland, including but not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and will request that the s over
major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and

Require the rail operators to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts
by the following measures, but not limited to, rafting road improvement plans for grading, widening,
or otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and
require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades;

Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing regulations for
federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Urge the City Council to express their opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the California League of Cities, California League of Counties, and other relevant
organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES - Brooks, Gallo, Gibson McElhaney, Kalb, KAPLAN, REID, schaaf, and President KERNIGHAN
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:
_______________________________
LATONDA SIMMONS

City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the

City of Oakland, California

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

Resolution No. ____________________C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS LYNETTE GIBSON MCELHANEY, DAN KALB,
AND PRO TEM REBECCA KAPLAN

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL

MATERIALS LIKE CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE ALONG CALIFORNIA
WATERWAYS, THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE CITY OF
OAKLAND.
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by
rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and federal
agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms of
coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of
Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed
coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to Asia for
the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts;

WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.
Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River Basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead - and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and

WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary, the Oakland waterfront, and its tributaries and routes adjacent to
the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to
Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridgel fuels, must be analyzed; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel Oaklands existing train lines, which
pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands
history, have been exposed to significant environmental harm for industrial and commercial purposes; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic, Lynchburg Virginia, or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic environmental,
infrastructural, and economic effects in our urban community and along our commercial and recreational
waterfronts; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend years in litigation over
damages as strategy to undercut payments or deflect blame; and
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through
California cities; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through Oakland
other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts of
these fossil fuels must be analyzed; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to transport
hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways and natural habitats through densely populated
areas, through the City of Oakland, The Port of Oakland, and critical water and electric resources, and resolves
to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits
or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District demanding public notice and CEQA
review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail terminals, or port
facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent substitution of Bakken crude for
ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public notification or CEQA review;

Actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes
+ OLGAs LANGUAGE

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request that railroads involved in coal, petroleum coke or
crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic
volume increases and that the railroad provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local
concerns;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require the railroad to update their emergency response plans
with the City of Oakland to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the
potential emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Urge the rail operators to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism
available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require rail operators to conduct environmental monitoring in
Oakland, including but not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and will request that the s over
major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and

Require the rail operators to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts
by the following measures, but not limited to, rafting road improvement plans for grading, widening,
or otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and
require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades;

Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing regulations for
federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Urge the City Council to express their opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the California League of Cities, California League of Counties, and other relevant
organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES - Brooks, Gallo, Gibson McElhaney, Kalb, KAPLAN, REID, schaaf, and President KERNIGHAN
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:
_______________________________
LATONDA SIMMONS

City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the

City of Oakland, California

CITY OF OAKLAND
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:

DATE:

Rules & Legislation Committee

City Administrator/Assistant City Administrator
Name/Contact Councilmembers Kalb and Gibson McElhaney
(Olga Bolatina and Casey Farmer)
Phone No.
Agency/Dept
05/7/14

510-238-7001
City Council (Districts 1 and 3)

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SCHEDULE AGENDA ITEM

(Use upper and lower case, Times Roman)

TITLE:

Resolution to Oppose Transportation of Hazardous Fossil Fuel Materials Like Crude Oil,
Coal, and Petroleum Coke Along California Waterways, Through Densely Populated
Areas, and Through the City of Oakland

SCHEDULING RECOMMENDATION:
A. Committee ___Public Works________

(Please specify Committee. Committees meet 2nd & 4th Tuesdays)

____________City Council

(Council/Agency meets on 1st, 3rd, and 5th Tuesdays)

B.

Meeting Date: 05.27.2014

(For City Employees Only)

Subject Title:__Opposing Transportation of Hazardous Fuels
This is the title in 4-5 words that the clerk should print on the face of the agenda above the
recommendation section

Name of Person Presenting the Report:____Councilmember Kalb________

PowerPoint Presentation: No__

Time Needed:___10min____

Is a formal public hearing required at Council? _No_ Requested hearing date: ___---___
Is there a statutory, regulatory, financial or grant deadline? none

Specify:

Is a staff report required/requested? None

What is the fiscal impact on the City/Agency? None
If the ten-day (Sunshine Ordinance) agenda deadline cannot be met, please indicate reason:
___ Item is an emergency. To place item on Supplemental (72-hour) agenda requires majority vote of
Rules Comm. that emergency exists, based on facts placed in the record related to crippling
disaster, work stoppage or other activity which severely impacts public health and/or safety.
Revised 1/11

___ Item is urgent. To place item on Supplemental (72-hour) agenda requires 2/3 vote of Rules
Comm. based on facts placed in the record that the need to take immediate action came to the
attention of the local body after the 10-day agenda was posted AND that the immediate action:
___ is required to avoid a substantial adverse impact that would occur if action was deferred to a
subsequent special or regular meeting;
___

relates to federal or state legislation;

___

relates to ceremonial or commendatory item.

A separate request must be completed for each item for scheduling. Requests must be submitted in
electronic format by 12:00 Noon on the Monday preceding the relevant Rules & Legislation Committee
meeting. Attach any supporting documentation.

Revised 1/11

CITY OF OAKLAND
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
__

DATE:

Rules & Legislation Committee

City Administrator/Assistant City Administrator
Name/Contact __Councilmembers Kalb and Gibson McElhaney
Phone No. _____510-238-7001____________
Agency/Dept __ City Council_____________
______________ 05/8/14________________

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SCHEDULE AGENDA ITEM

(Use upper and lower case, Times Roman)

TITLE:

Resolution to oppose transportation of hazardous fossil fuel materials like crude oil, coal,
and petroleum coke along California waterways, through densely populated areas, and
through the city of Oakland

SCHEDULING RECOMMENDATION:
A. Committee ___Public Works________

(Please specify Committee. Committees meet 2nd & 4th Tuesdays)

____________City Council

(Council/Agency meets on 1st, 3rd, and 5th Tuesdays)

B.

Meeting Date: 05.27.2014

(For City Employees Only)

Subject Title:__Resolution to oppose transportation of hazardous fossil fuel materials _
This is the title in 4-5 words that the clerk should print on the face of the agenda above the
recommendation section

Name of Person Presenting the Report:____Councilmember Kalb________

PowerPoint Presentation: No__

Time Needed:___10min____

Is a formal public hearing required at Council? _No_ Requested hearing date: ___---___
Is there a statutory, regulatory, financial or grant deadline? none

Specify:

Is a staff report required/requested? None

What is the fiscal impact on the City/Agency? None
If the ten-day (Sunshine Ordinance) agenda deadline cannot be met, please indicate reason:
___ Item is an emergency. To place item on Supplemental (72-hour) agenda requires majority vote of
Rules Comm. that emergency exists, based on facts placed in the record related to crippling
disaster, work stoppage or other activity which severely impacts public health and/or safety.

Revised 1/11

___ Item is urgent. To place item on Supplemental (72-hour) agenda requires 2/3 vote of Rules
Comm. based on facts placed in the record that the need to take immediate action came to the
attention of the local body after the 10-day agenda was posted AND that the immediate action:
___ is required to avoid a substantial adverse impact that would occur if action was deferred to a
subsequent special or regular meeting;
___

relates to federal or state legislation;

___

relates to ceremonial or commendatory item.

A separate request must be completed for each item for scheduling. Requests must be submitted in
electronic format by 12:00 Noon on the Monday preceding the relevant Rules & Legislation Committee
meeting. Attach any supporting documentation.

Revised 1/11

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. ___________ C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND
PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Assembly
Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to enact
legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and
other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern

1383417

about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans;
and
WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate

-2-

matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead
and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

-3-

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Consider submitting comments in opposition to CEQA documents and any draft permit
approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include a region-wide
cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to fully account for the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil
transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. whereby the City
Council of Oakland requests that he take executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of
volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington
Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urges that the BAAQMD require public
notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil
fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMDs issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to railroad companies involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and petcoke
in California requesting:
o
that the railroad company make public any plans for new or expanded rail
facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases;
o
that the railroad company provide representatives to meet periodically with local
citizen groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable
ways to address local concerns;
o
that the railroad company update its emergency response plan with the City of
Oakland to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the
potential emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous
materials;
o
that the rail operators conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and
o
that the railroad company implement measures to reduce community impacts
including, but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or
otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic

-4-

increases to prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay
in full for these upgrades in Oakland; and

Submit a copy of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
whereby the City Council of Oakland seeks assurances that the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive crude
by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
CPUC;

Send a copy of this Resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist
their help; and

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

-5-

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. ___________ C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND
PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Assembly
Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to enact
legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and
other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern

1383417

about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans;
and
WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate

-2-

matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead
and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

-3-

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Consider submitting comments in opposition to CEQA documents and any draft permit
approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include a region-wide
cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to fully account for the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil
transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. whereby the City
Council of Oakland requests that he take executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of
volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington
Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urges that the BAAQMD require public
notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil
fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMDs issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to rail carriers involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and petcoke in
California requesting:
o
that the rail carriers make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases;
o
that the rail carriers provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to
address local concerns;
o
that the rail carriers update its emergency response plan with the City of Oakland
to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;
o
that the rail carriers conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and
o
that the rail carriers implement measures to reduce community impacts including,
but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to

-4-

prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay in full for
these upgrades in Oakland; and

Submit a copy of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
whereby the City Council of Oakland seeks assurances that the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive crude
by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
CPUC;

Send a copy of this Resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist
their help; and

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

-5-

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:15 PM
To: 'taylorsmiley5@gmail.com'
Subject:
Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland Resolution_1383417_1_FINAL PL
2014_05-29 445 pm
Attachments: Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland Resolution_1383417_1_FINAL PL
2014_05-29 445 pm.docx
11:30 Public Works meeting on June 10th

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. ___________ C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND
PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Assembly
Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to enact
legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and
other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern

1383417

about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans;
and
WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate

-2-

matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead
and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

-3-

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Consider submitting comments in opposition to CEQA documents and any draft permit
approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include a region-wide
cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to fully account for the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil
transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. whereby the City
Council of Oakland requests that he take executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of
volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington
Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urges that the BAAQMD require public
notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil
fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMDs issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to rail carriers involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and petcoke in
California requesting:
o
that the rail carriers make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases;
o
that the rail carriers provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to
address local concerns;
o
that the rail carriers update its emergency response plan with the City of Oakland
to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;
o
that the rail carriers conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and
o
that the rail carriers implement measures to reduce community impacts including,
but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to

-4-

prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay in full for
these upgrades in Oakland; and

Submit a copy of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
whereby the City Council of Oakland seeks assurances that the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive crude
by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
CPUC;

Send a copy of this Resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist
their help; and

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

-5-

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

MLED

ffiCfc OF THE CITY eLtRf.

OAKLAND

14 MAY 29 PM 14:52
ity Attorne7s*bffice

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO.

C.M.S.

I N T R O D U C E D BY C O U N C I L M E M B E R S Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND
PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke ("petcoke")a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Assembly
Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to enact
legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Alliany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and
other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern

1383417

about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SERA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents' concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide - the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearty 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Megantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a "pernicious ballast foulant" that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans;
and ,
WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate

-2-

matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals - including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc - at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to California's agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major watenrt/ays, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oakland's
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oakland's history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Megantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California watenA/ays, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

-3-

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Consider submitting comments in opposition to CEQA documents and any draft permit
approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include a region-wide
cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to fully account for the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil
transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. whereby the City
Council of Oakland requests that he take executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomo's executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of
volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington
Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urges that the BAAQMD require public
notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil
fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMD's issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to rail carriers involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and petcoke in
California requesting:
0
that the rail carriers make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases;
0
that the rail carriers provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to
address local concerns;
0
that the rail carriers update its emergency response plan with the City of Oakland
to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;
0
that the rail carriers conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and
0
that the rail carriers implement measures to reduce community impacts including,
but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or othenA/ise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to

-4-

prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to .pay in full for
these upgrades in Oakland; and

Submit a copy of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
whereby the City Council of Oakland seeks assurances that the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive crude
by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
CPUC;

Send a copy of this Resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist
their help; and

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO. GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOESABSENTABSTENTION.

ATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

-5-

Approved as to Form and Legality

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. ___________ C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, LIKE INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL,
AND PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS,
THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE
CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint
Assembly Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict
the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt regulations on
greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive as those adopted by the
U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and

other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern
about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal
in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public
safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ;
and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and

-2-

WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to
an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate
matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead
and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin
Deltaposing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event
such as Lac Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in
any populated area; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities ; and therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to transport
hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats, through

-3-

densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special district and Port of
Oakland; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED:

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis
to fully account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple
proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in
California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York
Governor Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive
review of safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to
shipments of volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the
Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District urging public notice and
CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail
terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent
substitution of Bakken crude for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal which
happened without any public notification or CEQA review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request that railroads involved in coal,
petroleum coke or crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail
facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases and that the railroad provide
representatives to meet periodically with local citizen groups and local government
officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with the City of Oakland
to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUB), assure the CPUC railroad
safety program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive
crude by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
California Public Utilities Commission;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request rail operators to conduct environmental
monitoring in Oakland, including but not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and
request that the railroad submit environmental monitoring or testing information to local
government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years or until the Oakland City Council
determines that there is no significant environmental impact from activities conducted by
the railroad;

-4-

Request the railroad to implement measures to reduce community impacts including, but
not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to
prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay in full for
these upgrades in Oakland;

Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing

regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help engage the appropriate
regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

-5-

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

Approved as to Form and Legality

Formatted: Left

________________________
City Attorneys Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. ___________ C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, LIKE INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL,
AND PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS,
THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE
CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to
enact legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to
adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions

against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and

Formatted: Font: Bold

1383417

other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern
about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents concerns about dust and health impacts; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the

transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ;
and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

-2-

WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate
matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead
and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and

heavy metals including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin
Deltaposing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend

years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and

Formatted: Font: Bold

WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities ; and now, therefore, be
it

Formatted: Font: Bold

-3-

RESOLVED: tThat the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

Formatted: Font: Bold

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Consider submitting Include in allSubmit comments in opposition to CEQA documents

and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of
crude oil, coal and petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include
comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to
fully account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple
proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in
California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution letter to Governor Edmund G. Jerry Brown, Jr.
whereby the City Council of Oakland requesting requests that he take executive action
similar to New York Governor Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of safety procedures and emergency response
preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts
analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and
burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urgiesng that the BAAQMDit require
public notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with
fossil fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMDs issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health reviewrecent substitution of Bakken crude for
ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal which happened without any public
notification or CEQA review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to railroads companies involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and
petcoke in California requesting:
o
Should hazardous rail projects continue, request that the railroads company
involved in coal, petroleum coke or crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or
expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic volume increases;
and
o
that the railroad company provide representatives to meet periodically with local
citizen groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable
ways to address local concerns;

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: List Paragraph, Add space

between paragraphs of the same style, No
bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, Add space
between paragraphs of the same style, No
bullets or numbering

that the railroad company

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"

-4-

o
Require the railroad to update their its emergency response plans with the City of
Oakland to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the
potential emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous
materials;
o
that the rail operators conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or

numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Not Highlight

o
that the railroad company implement measures to reduce community impacts
including, but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or
otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic
increases to prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay
in full for these upgrades in Oakland; and

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering

Formatted: List Paragraph, Add space

between paragraphs of the same style, No
bullets or numbering

Formatted: Not Highlight

Submit a copy of this Resolution a letter to Through the California Public Utilitiesy
Commission (CPUCB), whereby the City Council of Oakland seeksing assurances thate
the CPUC railroad safety program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other
areas that may receive crude by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection,
infrastructure improvement, detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or
mechanisms available to the California Public Utilities CommissionCPUC;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request rail operators to conduct environmental
monitoring in Oakland, including but not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and
request that the railroad submit environmental monitoring or testing information to local
government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years or until the Oakland City Council
determines that there is no significant environmental impact from activities conducted by the
railroad;

Request the railroad to implement measures to reduce community impacts including, but
not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or otherwise providing
crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to prevent rail
accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades in
Oakland;

Send a copy of this Rresolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and
enlist their help; and

-5-

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Don't add

space between paragraphs of the same style
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Normal1, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOES
ABSENT
ABSTENTION
ATTEST:

-6-

LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-__________

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS LIKE
CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, NATURAL
HABITATS, THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and

WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
cities; and

WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by
rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and federal
agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms of
coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of
Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed
coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to Asia for
the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts;
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and

Formatted: Font color: Red

WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.
Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead - and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its tributaries, and routes adjacent to the
Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and [add any other local waterways] Oakland Water
Front posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water
supplies; and

WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel Oaklands existing train lines, which
pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands
history, have been exposed to significant environmental harm from industrial and commercial uses; and

WHEREAS
WHEREAS trains delivering crude, coal and petcoke would pass through [names of community and
neighboring communitiesmany East Bay communities, including the City of Oakland and its most
environmentally vulnerable and disadvantaged neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend years in litigation over
damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or deflect blame; and WHEREAS
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
cities; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through [name
of community]Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream
greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed; and therefore be it
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the [name of community]Oakland City Council opposes using
existing rail lines to transport hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the [name of community] Oakland and communities and special
district directly adjacent to it, and Port of Oakland, and
FURTHER RESOLVEresolves to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits
or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the [Bay Area, San Joaquin or relevant]Air Quality Management District
demanding public notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with
fossil fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent
substitution of Bakken crude for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public

notification or CEQA review;

Commit to fighting crude oil, coal and petroleum coke transport through [name of community]
Oakland utilizing the citys legal staff, working with local stakeholders and other groups, including
filing amicus briefs in support of neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused by
the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through [name of community]Oakland by
actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes;
engaging in state and federal regulatory processes; and by actively enforcing applicable federal
environmental statutes delegated to [name of community];Oakland;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, Should hazarades Rrequest that railroads involved in coal,
petroleum coke or crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases and that the railroad provide representatives to meet
periodically with local citizen groups and local government officials from [name of
community]Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with [name of community]the City of
Oakland to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Require the railroad to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism
available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require rail operators Require the railroads to Cconduct to
conduct environmental monitoring in [name of community]Oakland, including but not limited to
groundwater and air monitoring, and will request that the railroad submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years or until the [name of
community]Oakland City Council determines that there is no significant environmental impact from
activities conducted by the railroad;

Require the railroad to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts by, by
the following measures, but not limited to, but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for
grading, widening, or otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail
traffic increases and require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades in Oakland;
Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing regulations
for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Write and submit comments to the U.S. Department of Transportations anticipated federal rail safety
rulemaking regulating the shipment of crude by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and support their
efforts;

Formatted: Strikethrough

Formatted: Strikethrough

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or

numbering

Work through the California League of Cities, California League of Counties, and other relevant
organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-__________

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS LIKE
CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, NATURAL
HABITATS, THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and

WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
cities; and

WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by
rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and federal
agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms of
coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of
Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed
coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to Asia for
the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts;
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and

Formatted: Font color: Red

WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.
Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead - and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its tributaries, and routes adjacent to the
Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and [add any other local waterways] Oakland Water
Front posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water
supplies; and

WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel Oaklands existing train lines, which
pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands
history, have been exposed to significant environmental harm from industrial and commercial uses; and

WHEREAS
WHEREAS trains delivering crude, coal and petcoke would pass through [names of community and
neighboring communitiesmany East Bay communities, including the City of Oakland and its most
environmentally vulnerable and disadvantaged neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend years in litigation over
damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or deflect blame; and WHEREAS
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
cities; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through [name
of community]Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream
greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed; and therefore be it
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the [name of community]Oakland City Council opposes using
existing rail lines to transport hazardous crude, coal and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the [name of community] Oakland and communities and special
district directly adjacent to it, and Port of Oakland, and
FURTHER RESOLVEresolves to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits
or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the [Bay Area, San Joaquin or relevant]Air Quality Management District
demanding public notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with
fossil fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent
substitution of Bakken crude for ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public

notification or CEQA review;

Commit to fighting crude oil, coal and petroleum coke transport through [name of community]
Oakland utilizing the citys legal staff, working with local stakeholders and other groups, including
filing amicus briefs in support of neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused by
the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through [name of community]Oakland by
actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes;
engaging in state and federal regulatory processes; and by actively enforcing applicable federal
environmental statutes delegated to [name of community];Oakland;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, Should hazarades Rrequest that railroads involved in coal,
petroleum coke or crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases and that the railroad provide representatives to meet
periodically with local citizen groups and local government officials from [name of
community]Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with [name of community]the City of
Oakland to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Require the railroad to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism
available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require rail operators Require the railroads to Cconduct to
conduct environmental monitoring in [name of community]Oakland, including but not limited to
groundwater and air monitoring, and will request that the railroad submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years or until the [name of
community]Oakland City Council determines that there is no significant environmental impact from
activities conducted by the railroad;

Require the railroad to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts by, by
the following measures, but not limited to, but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for
grading, widening, or otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail
traffic increases and require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades in Oakland;
Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing regulations
for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Write and submit comments to the U.S. Department of Transportations anticipated federal rail safety
rulemaking regulating the shipment of crude by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and support their
efforts;

Formatted: Strikethrough

Formatted: Strikethrough

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or

numbering

Work through the California League of Cities, California League of Counties, and other relevant
organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representative to enlist their help at the federal level.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-__________

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, LIKE
INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS,
THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through our
citiesOakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have also passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by
rail; and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Inslee and Kitzhaber and Inslee, state and
federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the
harms of coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington
Department of Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis
of proposed coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River
Basin to Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities ;
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts;
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.

Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its tributaries, and routes adjacent to the
Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Deltaposing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to
Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and

WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands existing train lines, which
pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands
history, have been exposed to significant environmental harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend years in litigation over
damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or deflect blame; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through Oakland
and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts
of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the transport of any of these hazardous materials through our
communities ; and therefore be it

Comment [KD1]: Is this paragraph really

necessary to include. Doesnt really fit with rest of
resolution.

RESOLVED that the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to transport hazardous crude, coal
and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats, through densely populated areas, through Oakland
and communities and special district directly adjacent to it, and Port of Oakland, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED to:

File comments in opposition on CEQA documents and any draft permit approvals, such as air permits
or zoning changes, for transport of crude, coal and petcoke, as they occur;

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District demanding urging public notice and
CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail terminals, or port
facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent substitution of Bakken crude for
ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal without any public notification or CEQA review;

Commit to fighting crude oil, coal and petroleum coke transport through Oakland utilizing the citys
legal staff, working with local stakeholders and other groups, including filing amicus briefs in support
of neighbors and environmental organizations that file lawsuits;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused by
the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through Oakland by actively enforcing applicable
local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes; engaging in state and federal
regulatory processes; and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental statutes delegated to

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request that railroads involved in coal, petroleum coke or
crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic
volume increases and that the railroad provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local
concerns;

Comment [KD2]: Who is going go file

comments. Are we directing the city to file CEQA
comments to some other agency? I dont understand
this sentence.

Comment [KD3]: Does this fit with rest of this

long sentence?? Sounds a bit confusing??

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with the City of Oakland to account for
the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential emergencies that could occur
with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Comment [KD4]: Can we do this?

Require the railroad to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism
available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Comment [KD5]: Can we do this?

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require rail operators to conduct environmental monitoring in
Oakland, including but not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and request that the railroad
submit environmental monitoring or testing information to local government entities on a monthly
basis for 10 years or until the Oakland City Council determines that there is no significant
environmental impact from activities conducted by the railroad;

Comment [KD6]: Can we do this?

Require the railroad to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts by, by
the following measures, but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or
otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and
require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades in Oakland;

Comment [KD7]: Can we do this?

Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing regulations for
federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and support their
efforts;

Work through the California League of of California Cities, California League State Association of
Counties, and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help engage the appropriate regulatory
authorities at the federal level.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-__________

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, LIKE
INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS,
THROUGH DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, AND THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or refine coal, crude oil and
petroleum coke (petcoke)a byproduct of oil refiningon the West Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import
Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing rail terminals are securing permits
to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or CEQA review; and
WHEREAS other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude by rail through
Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to build or expand export
facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Joint Assembly Resolution No. 35
in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to
any nation that fails to adopt regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions as restrictive
as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting volatile crude by rail
by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a
moratorium on crude increases at the Port of Albany pending a public health investigation. In California, the
cities of Berkeley and Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail;
and
WHEREAS in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions against coal transport and
export, and hundreds of other public officialsincluding Governors Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal
agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms of
coal by making statements of concern about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of
Ecology, through its SEPA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed
coal export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to Asia for
the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are pursuing new legislation
to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to residents concerns about dust and health
impacts; and
WHEREAS the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail nationwide the volume
of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50 percent last year aloneaccompanied by a
similar rise in accidents, nearly 100 in 2013. More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in
the preceding four decades, amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars
loaded with 2 million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Mgantic, Canada, causing explosions
that destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a large volume of those
materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each coal car in a 125-car coal train loses,
on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip.

Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities, towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with
coal dust, petcoke and chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the transportation of coal by rail
found that coal dust is a pernicious ballast foulant that can destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train
derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to
lose their lives, large amounts of coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the
damage; and
WHEREAS coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of coal in open rail cars and
accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create public safety hazards, including train
derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the contents of crude oil shipments
to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the substances being transported by rail and the
devastating consequences of a crude oil rail accident including loss of life, property and environmental
damage, and thus made recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail
safety regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans ; and
WHEREAS new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are expected to result in a
massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about blocked roads inhibiting the travel of
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use,
and other vehicle traffic, and potentially catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead to an increase in
diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate matter from diesel engines has
been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents; increased cardiopulmonary mortality;
measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room
visits, and hospital admissions in children; increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk
of cancer; and increased asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS coal contains toxic heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and lead and exposure to these
toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth defects; and
WHEREAS petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc at levels that that are harmful to fish and wildlife as well
as humans; and
WHEREAS crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly
flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and
WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area will follow routes
adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its tributaries, and routes adjacent to the
Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Deltaposing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to
Californias agricultural irrigation and drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some of the most
challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and numerous unsafe old steel
and timber bridges over major waterways, greatly increasing the probability of serious accidents; and

WHEREAS trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oaklands existing train lines, which
pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West Oakland, which, throughout Oaklands
history, have been exposed to significant environmental harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an event such as Lac
Mgantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend years in litigation over
damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or deflect blame; and
WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train traffic through Oakland
and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts
of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the transport of any of these hazardous materials through our
communities ; and therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to transport hazardous crude, coal
and petcoke along California waterways, natural habitats, through densely populated areas, through Oakland
and communities and special district directly adjacent to it, and Port of Oakland, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED to:

Include in all CEQA comments a request for a region-wide cumulative impacts analysis to fully
account for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal,
petcoke and crude oil transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a letter to Governor Jerry Brown requesting executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomos executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of safety
procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of volatile crude oil and a
cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington Department of Ecology for coal mining,
transport and burning;

Submit a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District urging public notice and CEQA
review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil fuel rail terminals, or port
facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the recent substitution of Bakken crude for
ethanol at the Richmond Kinder Morgan Terminal which happened without any public notification or
CEQA review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and groundwater caused by
the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through Oakland by actively enforcing applicable
local public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing
applicable federal environmental statutes;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, request that railroads involved in coal, petroleum coke or
crude oil proposals make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or significant rail traffic
volume increases and that the railroad provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local
concerns;

Require the railroad to update their emergency response plans with the City of Oakland to account for
the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential emergencies that could occur
with accidents including these hazardous materials;

Require the railroad to immediately contact the Railroad Operations and Safety Branch of the
California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the timely implementation of adequate and up to date
plans for investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement, or any other procedure or mechanism
available to the California Public Utilities Commission to improve and maintain safe operating
practices and transport of materials by rail;

Should hazardous rail projects continue, require rail operators to conduct environmental monitoring in
Oakland, including but not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and request that the railroad
submit environmental monitoring or testing information to local government entities on a monthly
basis for 10 years or until the Oakland City Council determines that there is no significant
environmental impact from activities conducted by the railroad;

Require the railroad to prevent rail accidents, offset congestion, and reduce community impacts by the
following measures, but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or
otherwise providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases and
require the railroad to pay in full for these upgrades in Oakland;

Send this resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is developing regulations for
federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111 cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and support their
efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and other
relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert State legislative representatives and lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist their help;

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help engage the appropriate regulatory
authorities at the federal level.

CITY OF OAKLAND
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:

DATE:

Rules & Legislation Committee

City Administrator/Assistant City Administrator
Name/Contact Councilmembers Kalb, Gibson McElhaney, Kaplan
(Olga Bolotina and Casey Farmer)
Phone No.
Agency/Dept
05/7/14

510-238-7001
City Council (Districts 1 and 3)

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SCHEDULE AGENDA ITEM

(Use upper and lower case, Times Roman)

TITLE:

Resolution to Oppose Transportation of Hazardous Fossil Fuel Materials Like Crude Oil,
Coal, and Petroleum Coke Along California Waterways, Through Densely Populated
Areas, and Through the City of Oakland

SCHEDULING RECOMMENDATION:
A. Committee ___Public Works________

(Please specify Committee. Committees meet 2nd & 4th Tuesdays)

____________City Council

(Council/Agency meets on 1st, 3rd, and 5th Tuesdays)

B.

Meeting Date: 05.27.2014

(For City Employees Only)

Subject Title:__Opposing Transportation of Hazardous Fuels
This is the title in 4-5 words that the clerk should print on the face of the agenda above the
recommendation section

Name of Person Presenting the Report:____Councilmember Kalb________

PowerPoint Presentation: No__

Time Needed:___10min____

Is a formal public hearing required at Council? _No_ Requested hearing date: ___---___
Is there a statutory, regulatory, financial or grant deadline? none

Specify:

Is a staff report required/requested? None

What is the fiscal impact on the City/Agency? None
If the ten-day (Sunshine Ordinance) agenda deadline cannot be met, please indicate reason:
___ Item is an emergency. To place item on Supplemental (72-hour) agenda requires majority vote of
Rules Comm. that emergency exists, based on facts placed in the record related to crippling
disaster, work stoppage or other activity which severely impacts public health and/or safety.
Revised 1/11

___ Item is urgent. To place item on Supplemental (72-hour) agenda requires 2/3 vote of Rules
Comm. based on facts placed in the record that the need to take immediate action came to the
attention of the local body after the 10-day agenda was posted AND that the immediate action:
___ is required to avoid a substantial adverse impact that would occur if action was deferred to a
subsequent special or regular meeting;
___

relates to federal or state legislation;

___

relates to ceremonial or commendatory item.

A separate request must be completed for each item for scheduling. Requests must be submitted in
electronic format by 12:00 Noon on the Monday preceding the relevant Rules & Legislation Committee
meeting. Attach any supporting documentation.

Revised 1/11

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Port of Oakland
Kalb, Dan
Port of Oakland Maritime Newsletter - February Edition
Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:05:30 PM
Maritime+Newsletter+-+February+2015.pdf

Dear Port of Oakland Partner,

Attached below isthe February edition of the Port's monthly Maritime Newsletter.
Thank you.

Maritime Newsletter - February 2015.pdf

STAY CONNECTED:
Questions? Contact Us

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences|Unsubscribe|Help

This email was sent to dkalb@oaklandnet.com, on behalf of Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, CA94607 510-627-1100

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Port of Oakland
Luby, Oliver
Port of Oakland Press Release: Big Step for Oakland Army Base Project
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:59:57 AM

Port of Oakland

P R E S S R E L E A S E
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Big Step for Oakland Army Base Project: Link to the Outside
Port of Oakland, UP Railroad will connect future logistics hub to the main line
Oakland, Calif.Jan. 21, 2015A global logistics hub envisioned for Oakland's decommissioned army base takes a big
step forward beginning today. The Port of Oakland and Union Pacific Railroad start construction to link the site with
UPs main line.
Connecting the Oakland Army Base to the national rail network is a milestone for us, said Chris Chan, the Ports
Engineering Director. To be successful, we must have good rail access.
The $25 million project is financed by the Port of Oakland and the California Transportation Commissions Trade
Corridors Improvement Fund. Its part of a $100 million Port effort to significantly expand Oakland rail capacity. A
7,400-foot lead track and the reconfiguration of adjacent tracks should be completed in October. Once finished, the
Port will be better positioned to receive bulk rail shipments at the former army base from Union Pacific and BNSF
railroads.
The Port andCity of Oaklandexpect to transform Trans-Pacific supply chains at the 360-acre former army base
logistics center. Located on the Ports Outer Harbor, it would include warehousing, trans-load facilities and a dry-bulk
cargo terminal. Heres how it could change the way exports are moved:
Bulk shipments of commodities such as Midwest grain and beef could be delivered to Oakland by rail, transloaded into containers at the Port, and then exported via Asia-bound container vessels.
Bulk shipments of other commodities could also travel to Oakland by rail. They would be loaded onto bulk
vessels at a new dry-bulk shipping terminal and exported to Asia.
Union Pacific will manage construction of the army base rail link within its own property. The railroad has hired
Oakland-based McGuire & Hester for a significant portion of the work. The Port has emphasized use of local
contractors since construction began at the former army base in 2013.
Click here for aerial photos of the Oakland Army base rail project:

http://bit.ly/15eSvvS
About the Port of Oakland:
The Port of Oakland oversees the Oakland seaport andOakland International Airport. The Port'sjurisdiction includes 20 miles of waterfront from the Bay
Bridge through Oakland International Airport.The Oakland seaport is the fifth busiest container port in the U.S.; Oakland International Airport is the
second largest San Francisco Bay Area airport offering over 300 daily passenger and cargo flights; and the Ports real estate includes commercial
developments such as Jack London Square and hundreds of acres of public parks and conservation areas. Together, through Port operations and those of
its tenants and users, the Port supportsmore than73,000 jobs in the region and nearly 827,000 jobs across the United States. The Port of Oakland was
established in 1927 and is an independent department of the City of Oakland. Connect with the Port of Oakland and Oakland International Airport through
Facebook, or with the Port on Twitter, YouTube, and at www.portofoakland.com.

Media Contact:
Robert Bernardo
Communications Manager

Port of Oakland
(510) 627-1401
rbernardo@portoakland.com
Marilyn Sandifur
Port Spokesperson
Port of Oakland
(510) 627-1193
msandifur@portoakland.com
###

STAY CONNECTED:
Questions? Contact Us

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences|Unsubscribe|Help

This email was sent to oluby@oaklandnet.com, on behalf of Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, CA94607 510-627-1100

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Maio, Linda
Office of the Mayor; Kalb, Dan; Kernighan, Pat; District 3 Intern; Wald, Zachary; Schaaf, Libby; Gallo, Noel;
Reid, Larry; Brooks, Desley; At Large
City Clerk
Proposal to transport highly hazardous crude through our cities
Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:21:54 PM
City of Oakland.pdf
1. Joint Hearing Senate Committee 3-19-14.pdf
2. CUOMO RESOLUTION.pdf
3. BERKELEY RESOLUTION NO. 66,516-N.S..pdf

Dear Mayor and City Council:

Berkeley has recently learned of a proposal to transport highly hazardous crude to a San Luis Obispo
refinery through our cities and towns using the Amtrak Capital Corridor rail lines.The project is in its
EIR permit stage.Berkeley is poised to submit our comments in opposition and urge you to act as well.

The nature of this particular hazardous crude is as described: Canadian Tar Sand crude is highly
viscous and, as has been witnessed in the aftermath of the pipeline accident at the Kalamazoo River in
Michigan, nearly impossible to clean up after spending $1 Billion. Bakken crude, from the Dakotas, the
other hazardous crude, is extremely volatile and explosive, and contains high concentrations of
benzene, a potent carcinogen. (Video of the most serious Bakken crude accident at Lac Megantic,
Canada, which decimated the town and killed 47 people: http://youtu.be/aPVRRgAtL4A)

Accidents involving these two types of crude have increased, concomitant with recent increases in
shipments by rail (see attachments).Every city and town that relies on California waterways for its
water supply, whose industries, agriculture, commercial enterprises, and residents adjoin the Amtrak
Capitol Corridor rail lines, must educate themselves about the dangers involved in shipping these
hazardous materials by our rail lines. Berkeley has resolved to appeal to Governor Brown and our state
and federal representatives to intervene.Providing more robust emergency response has been
suggested, but is not the answer.Accidents involving these hazardous substances can be
disastrous.No amount of cleanup can avoid that.

The extreme hazard level and recent accidents, and concern for public safety, require us to act. The
Berkeley resolution, attached, should be helpful in outlining steps each city and town can take.Other
cities, recently Davis and Sacramento, have also issued similar resolutions. Although it is true that the
railroads are exempt from local, or state regulation, that cannot deter us.We ask the City of Oakland to
take similar steps and to work in concert with stakeholder cities to improve our effectiveness. Please
contact my office indicating how you can work with us to protect our waterways, our towns, and cities.

Sincerely,
Councilmember Linda Maio
Vice Mayor of the City of Berkeley
510.981.7110 | cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio

Attached:

1) Presentation by the California PUC to the Joint Hearing of the Senate Environmental Quality
and Natural Resources and Water Committees. (3/19/2014)
2) Executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York (limited only to his powers as
Governor).
3) The City of Berkeley resolution, passed in March 2014.

From: Deborah Silvey <deborah.silvey@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 12:25 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: 1394666_2 (2)
Hi Olga,
Just wanted to put into writing the questions I asked on my phone message to you this morning:
1. Do you recommend having just one speaker for our group (as per the guidelines on the
website)?
2. I notice the resolution's language requires divestment from ALL fossil fuel companies, not just the
biggest ones (the 200 from Carbon Tracker). Was that intentional? Will that cause any potential
problems?
You can reach me any time today or this evening at the 333-8513 number, or just shoot
me an email. We 6 or 7 will be ready to be at the Courthouse at 9:00.
Onward!
Deborah
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Deborah,
Thank you so much for your fast response!
This is a tough committee so it would be great to have people speaking in favor of the resolution,
especially if they are Oakland residents or specialists in this area. Thank you so much for doing this!
There will be at least one more opportunity to speak when this resolution moves to the full Council. I
will keep everyone informed.
Taylor mightve already forwarded this to you, but just in case Im including a little more info on this and
another Fossil Fuel related resolution.
Please dont hesitate to call/email me if you have any question.
Thanks again!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Greetings!
We want to alert you to a couple of Oakland City Council Resolutions that are coming to the June 10th

Finance and Public Works Committees, respectively. Please join us at one and/or both meetings to speak
is support of these resolutions. Please feel out a speaker card in person before each item starts or on
line at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/SpeakerCard/OAK032373
Please see more information for speakers here:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/index.htm
June 10th Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza:
*
The Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution comes to the Finance and Management committee
starts at 9:15am in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor.
Please see the full resolution and the report here
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report_Divestment.pdf
Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319620&GUID=94125F85-78D4-46EBBB5B-B1B0332A6181&Options=info|&Search=
City Councilmember Dan Kalb have authored a Resolution on Fossil Fuel Divestment. In short
the Resolution will prohibit the City of Oakland from holding in its investment portfolio any
investments and/or any ownership stake in Fossil Fuel companies. The Resolution directs the
City Administrator to examine the City's current financial holdings and divest from Fossil Fuel
companies and to perform periodic reviews of the Citys investment portfolio to ensure ongoing
compliance with the policy. The resolution also urges the Oakland Municipal Employees
Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) and the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Boards and other local and special
districts jurisdictions to adopt policies consistent with this Resolution.
*
Resolution Opposing Transportation of Hazardous Fossil Fuel Materials by Rail comes
to the Public Works Committee starts at 11:30am in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor
Please see the full resolution here:
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report%20(4)_Rail%20Transport.pdf
Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319613&GUID=EC6E51C4-F375-414BA717-D035A05510B6&Options=info|&Search=
This resolution, jointly authored by Councilmembers Gibson McElhaney, Kalb, and Kaplan,
opposes transportation of hazardous fossil fuel materials, including crude oil, coal, and
petroleum coke, along California waterways, through densely populated areas, and through the
City of Oakland.
We believe that each resolution expresses a strong position and helps to address the rapidly developing
climate crisis and potentially dangerous conditions--locally and throughout our planet--due, in large
part, to the burning of fossil fuels. We would like to thank 350.org and Sierra Club for helping to create
and move forward these important resolutions!
Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Olga
From: Deborah Silvey [mailto:deborah.silvey@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 8:26 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Fwd: 1394666_2 (2)

Hi Olga,
Could you let me know if we should try to get a lot of people in support of this resolution for this
9:30 Tuesday meeting? I've put the word out to our divestment group, but I could publicize it
more widely with the 350 Bay Area Steering Committee and the 350 East Bay group, if that is
what you think would be a good idea.
Please let me know--this is an exciting piece of news!
Thanks,
Deborah
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Taylor Smiley <taylorsmiley5@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: 1394666_2 (2)
To: Deborah Silvey <Deborah.silvey@gmail.com>
Deborah,
A divestment resolution is coming before the Finance Committee for the City of Oakland on
June 10th at 9:30am.
Can we get people out there? The resolution is attached.
Best,
Taylor

-Deborah Silvey
350 Bay Area Divestment Team
deborah.silvey@gmail.com
510-849-9577
510-333-8513 (mobile)

-Deborah Silvey
350 Bay Area Divestment Team
deborah.silvey@gmail.com
510-849-9577
510-333-8513 (mobile)

From: Farmer, Casey

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:50 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
RE: comments for Hazardous Rail Reso
Attachments: OaklandHazardousRailResolution (CF Comments).docx

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:45 AM
To: Farmer, Casey
Subject: RE: comments for Hazardous Rail Reso
Word doc would be great :)
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Farmer, Casey
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:07 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: comments for Hazardous Rail Reso
does this link work? did it go through on Gmail?
C:\Users\farme9c\Downloads\OaklandHazardousRailResolution.docx
Casey Farmer
Policy Analyst and Community Liaison
City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Oakland, District 3
cfarmer@oaklandnet.com
Direct 510.238.7031
Cell 510.863.4059

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:52 PM
To: Chan, Ada
Subject:
RE: could you send draft of hazardous transport reso?
Attachments: Generic Coal_Oil_Petcoke_Resolution_v4.docx
Here you go. Thank you!
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Chan, Ada
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:33 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: could you send draft of hazardous transport reso?

Ada Chan Policy Analyst

Office of Council President Pro Tem Rebecca D. Kaplan
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 243 Oakland, CA 94612
(o) 510-238-7083 (e) AChan1@oaklandnet.com

From: Jeffrey Hoffman <jhoffman@sfwriter.org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:07 PM
To: Robert Silvey
Cc: Brett Fleishman; Ophir Bruck; Bolotina, Olga; Deborah Silvey; Rand
Wrobel
Subject:
Re: [Divestment California] Oakland Divestment Coverage in East
Bay Express
I'll work with Rand and Olga on this. We should get a comment from Kalb and maybe Debra can
send me a few sentences before you leave. Or I could get Ophir and or Brett Fleishman to
comment.
From: Robert Silvey <robert.silvey@gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Hoffman <jhoffman@sfwriter.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Divestment California] Oakland Divestment Coverage in East Bay Express
Great story--it captures the essence of both actions. Thank you for making the contact with EB
Express that got the story in. (Or was this essentially your story that you passed on to Jean?)
The contact for Councilmember Dan Kalb is Olga Bolotina, who was taking photos for us
yesterday. If you want to put together a press release for next week's City Council meeting, she
would be a good source:
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
510.238.7240 or 510.238.7001
And as I mentioned, Rand has the software--with media contact names--to distribute it far and
wide. Which he could do, or (if it makes sense to you) he could get you logged in and oriented to
do it. In case you don't have his email: rand.wrobel@gmail.com.
Great to be working with you. We're off for vacation tomorrow morning and will be mostly
incommunicado until July 11.
Cheers,
Robert

++++
Robert Silvey
510.684.9645
robert.silvey@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/rsilvey
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jeffrey Hoffman <jhoffman@sfwriter.org> wrote:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2014/06/11/oakland-moves-forward-onfossil-fuel-bans
Oakland Moves Forward on Fossil Fuel Bans
POLITICS / BUSINESS / ENVIRONMENTJean Tepperman Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:11 AM
TOOLS

*
twitter
*
facebook
*
save to instapaper
*
email
*
print
*
add to favorites
*
add to custom list
*
comments (1)
Two Oakland City Council committees unanimously approved measures
yesterday that would, in different ways, combat the harm being done by fossil
fuels to the City of Oakland and to the planet. The Council Public Works
Committee passed a proposal to ban the shipment of coal through the city and
the Port of Oakland and to oppose the shipment of crude oil on railroad tracks
through Oakland. And the council Finance Committee approved a measure that
would remove city funds from investments in fossil fuel companies and urge
public retirement funds and other local communities to do the same.
If the full council passes the measure on the shipment of fossil fuel, authored by
Councilmembers Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, and Rebecca Kaplan,
Oakland would join Berkeley and Richmond in opposing the shipment of crude
oil on railroad tracks through their communities. Cities do not have the power to
actually ban these shipments because only the federal government can regulate
railroads.
-You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Divestment
California" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to divestmentcalifornia+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to divestment-california@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

From: Jay Carmona <jay@350.org>

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 8:11 PM
To: Olga Bolotina; Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: divestment resolution(s)
Olga, did you get this? Following up with your work email as well.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Jay Carmona <jay@350.org> wrote:
Olga,
I'd like to pull you off this thread to discuss the Oakland resolution. Would you like to grab lunch
next week to chat about it? Happy to also come by your office if you can't get away. Free at noon
on Wednesday.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Janet Cox <janet@jwcox.com> wrote:
Hi all -- thought I'd talk to everyone at once here....
Olga and I talked today about collaborating on a resolution supporting divestment from fossil
fuel companies -- for the Alameda Co. Dem. Central Committee and the City of Oakland. Olga
is staff to Dan Kalb, who will carry the Council resolution.
Igor and Michael and I mentioned this at New Years....The goal, of course, is to send the
resolution to the CA Democratic Party, at their July E-Board meeting. We agreed that the
February Central Committee meeting would be a good time to bring the resolution up, so we'd
have time to pass it locally and then send it around to the other committees for their
endorsement, before July.
And, Andy Katz and I also talked about it today -- he's going to bring it up to local SEIU reps,
who can help get it passed both locally and statewide.
According to the Central Committee guidelines (here they are: http://acdems.org/resolutionguidelines) we need to send Andy Kelley the resolution language by January 29, next
Wednesday. We'll need a Central Committee member, alternate, or associate to carry it.
BUT
In the meantime, Google tells me that Ventura County and the Dem Party Environmental
Caucus put up a divestment resolution last year that didn't pass the convention. Central
Committees of Sonoma County, LA County, Sacramento County passed it too. Michael, do you
recall anything about this? Was it a close vote?
I don't mind trying again, but we should probably talk to the person from Ventura and the chair
of the Environmental Caucus, who are the same person, RL Miller.
Should we use the same language (it's a little too specific for my taste, but heck) because the
other committees have already passed it, and just try again? I'm pasting in the Ventura version
below, and the statewide version below that.
Olga, let's talk about Oakland's resolution stylesheet, see if we can put one together that will
work for all.
Janet
Resolution in Support of Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies

WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed that any warming above a 2C
(3.6F) rise would be unsafe. We have already raised the temperature .8C, and that has caused
far more damage than most scientists expected. A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone,
the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold,
consequences of inaction will result in devastating floods and drought;
WHEREAS, scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees,
while proven coal, oil, and gas reserves equals about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the
amount we can release to maintain 2 degrees of warming;
and WHEREAS, Californias institutions of higher education and pension funds should
encourage only those investments that allow students and retirees to live healthy lives without
the impact of a warming planet, and thus campaigns to divest from fossil fuels have begun at
campuses within both the University of California and California State University systems;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ventura County Democratic Party calls upon the
University of California and California State University endowments, and CALPERS,
CALSTRS, and Ventura County Employees Retirement Account pension funds to immediately
stop new investments in fossil fuel companies, to take steps to divest all holdings from the top
200 fossil fuel companies as determined by the Carbon Tracker list within five years, and to
release updates available to the public, detailing progress made toward full divestment;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ventura County Democratic Party send a copy of this
resolution to the Governor of the State of California, Board of Regents of the University of
California, Chancellor of the California State University system, United States Senators
representing California, Members of Congress representing any part of Ventura County,
members of the state senate and state assembly representing any part of Ventura County, and all
members of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, asking support for divestment from
fossil fuels.
submitted by RLMiller 2/14/2013
Revised 2/21/2013
Passed Ventura County Democratic Party Central Committee 2/26/2013
Resolution in Support of Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed that any warming above a 2C
(3.6F) rise would be unsafe. We have already raised the temperature 0.8C (1.4F), which has
caused far more damage than most scientists expected - a third of summer sea ice in the Arctic
is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than
cold, consequences of inaction will result in devastating floods and drought; and
WHEREAS, scientists estimate that humans can release roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees,
while proven coal, oil, and gas reserves equal about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the
amount we can release to maintain 2 degrees of warming; and
WHEREAS, Californias institutions of higher education and pension funds should encourage
only those investments that allow students and retirees to live healthy lives without the impact
of a warming planet, and thus campaigns to divest from fossil fuels have begun at campuses
within both the University of California and California State University systems;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic Party calls upon the University of
California and California State University endowments, and CALPERS and CALSTRS
institutional funds to immediately stop new investments in fossil fuel companies, to take steps
to divest all holdings from the top 200 fossil fuel companies as determined by the Carbon
Tracker list within five years, and to release updates available to the public, detailing progress
made toward full divestment;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic Party send a copy of this resolution to the
Governor of the State of California, Board of Regents of the University of California,

Chancellor of the California State University system, and officials at CalPERS and CalSTRS,
asking support for divestment from fossil fuels.
WHEREAS, the scientific consensus worldwide is that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise
would be unsafe; and we have already raised the temperature 0.8C (1.4F), and that has caused
far more damage than most scientists expected a third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone,
the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold,
the climate has produced both devastating floods and drought; and
WHEREAS, scientists estimate that humans can release roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees,
while proven coal, oil, and gas reserves equal about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the
amount we can release to maintain 2 degrees of warming; and
WHEREAS, Californias institutions of higher education and pension funds should encourage
only those investments that allow students and retirees to live healthy lives without the impact
of a warming planet, and campaigns to divest from fossil fuels have already begun at campuses
within both the University of California and California State University systems;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Los Angeles County Democratic Party calls upon
the University of California and California State University endowments, CALPERS,
CALSTRS, and Los Angeles City and County retirement to immediately stop new investments
in fossil fuel companies within five years, to take steps to divest all holdings from the top 200
fossil fuel companies, as determined by the Carbon Tracker list, and to release updates available
to the public, detailing progress made toward full divestment;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Los Angeles County Democratic Party send a copy of
this resolution to the Governor of the State of California, Board of Regents of the University of
California, Chancellor of the California State University system, CALPERS, CALSTRS, Mayor
of Los Angeles, Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Author: Richard M. Mathews, Regional Vice Chair, AD 38
Passed LACDP 3/12/2013
Cotact: Agi Kessler
agikessler@yahoo.com
805-469-6050
- See more at: http://www.lacdp.org/resolution-on-divestment-from-fossil-fuelcompanies/#sthash.OegBlhLV.dpuf
WHEREAS, the scientific consensus worldwide is that any warming above a 2C (3.6F) rise
would be unsafe; and we have already raised the temperature 0.8C (1.4F), and that has caused
far more damage than most scientists expected a third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone,
the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold,
the climate has produced both devastating floods and drought; and
WHEREAS, scientists estimate that humans can release roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees,
while proven coal, oil, and gas reserves equal about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the
amount we can release to maintain 2 degrees of warming; and
WHEREAS, Californias institutions of higher education and pension funds should encourage
only those investments that allow students and retirees to live healthy lives without the impact
of a warming planet, and campaigns to divest from fossil fuels have already begun at campuses
within both the University of California and California State University systems;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Los Angeles County Democratic Party calls upon
the University of California and California State University endowments, CALPERS,
CALSTRS, and Los Angeles City and County retirement to immediately stop new investments
in fossil fuel companies within five years, to take steps to divest all holdings from the top 200
fossil fuel companies, as determined by the Carbon Tracker list, and to release updates available
to the public, detailing progress made toward full divestment;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Los Angeles County Democratic Party send a copy of
this resolution to the Governor of the State of California, Board of Regents of the University of
California, Chancellor of the California State University system, CALPERS, CALSTRS, Mayor
of Los Angeles, Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Author: Richard M. Mathews, Regional Vice Chair, AD 38
Passed LACDP 3/12/2013
Cotact: Agi Kessler
agikessler@yahoo.com
805-469-6050
- See more at: http://www.lacdp.org/resolution-on-divestment-from-fossil-fuelcompanies/#sthash.OegBlhLV.dpuf

-Jay Carmona | National Divestment Campaign Manager | 350.org | 510-502-0752 | skype:

jcarmona44 | @jaycarmona

-Jay Carmona | National Divestment Campaign Manager | 350.org | 510-502-0752 | skype:

jcarmona44 | @jaycarmona

From: Farmer, Casey

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 6:58 PM
To: Ronald Jackson; Wald, Zachary; Cook, Brigitte
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
RE: Fuel By Rail (Oakland and Birmingham, Alabama)
Hi Ronald,
Thanks for your email and your voicemail. I have some time to discuss by phone tomorrow if you are
available.
Im looping in Olga from Councilmember Kalbs office. She has the final word version of the document.
Best,
Casey
Casey Farmer
Policy Analyst and Community Liaison
City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Oakland, District 3
cfarmer@oaklandnet.com
Direct 510.238.7031

From: Ronald Jackson [mailto:cfbsk12@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:36 PM
To: Wald, Zachary; Cook, Brigitte; Farmer, Casey
Subject: Fuel By Rail (Oakland and Birmingham, Alabama)
ZWald@Oaklandnet.com
BCook@Oaklandnet.com CFarmer@Oaklandnet.com
Good afternoon.
I would greatly appreciate speaking with either, or all, of you, this day regarding
a recently adopted Oakland municipal environmental justice ordinance (OAKLAND,
Calif. - The City of Oakland Public Works Committee voted unanimously to
move forward to the full council a resolution that opposes transporting coal,
petroleum coke, crude oil and other hazardous materials along rail lines )
I serve as Executive Director of Citizens for Better Schools & Sustainable
Communities CFBSC, Birmingham Alabama. We are in the midst of a "fuel By Rail"
struggle with the Class I railroad company CSX Transportation (CSX or CSXT). We
are holding a South East Fuel By Rail Environmental Justice Conference &
Symposium" in Birmingham, Alabama (August 13-15). We welcome your
participation and guidance on this common issue of environmental and economic
justice concern (please see our Attached Conference Announcement and the following
media news clip links
Roll Elsewhere Urban Housing Authority Tells CSX
http://www.veooz.com/news/gHGbBQr.html
CSX Over Pass
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/01/birmingham_council_approves_ne

.html
Slowed Not Derailed
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/05/slowed_not_derailed_birmingha
m.html ).
We would like to learn more about your legislation and work on this issue. I
thank you in advance for the alacrity of your response, cooperation, and
telephone call (205) 862-0538 0r (205) 925-9080. Sincerely,
-Ronald E. Jackson
Executive Director
Citizens for Better Schools & Sustainable Schools
"Structuring Schools for Success Making the Vision Work for All Students - Building Sustainable Communities"
cfbsk12@gmail.com

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:05 PM
To: Farmer, Casey; Chan, Ada
Subject:
RE: hazardous transport reso?
Attachments: Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland Resolution_Submitted.docx
Hello,
Thats what was submitted to the clerk. Ill send a copy to the City Attorney.
Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Farmer, Casey
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Chan, Ada; Bolotina, Olga
Subject: RE: hazardous transport reso?
Any opposition to other Therefores?
From: Chan, Ada
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:30 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga; Farmer, Casey
Subject: hazardous transport reso?
The two therefore's that I'd like to make sure we keep in is the health assessment/monitoring and
working through the league of cities.
Ada
On May 14, 2014, at 5:52 PM, "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Here you go. Thank you!
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Chan, Ada
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:33 PM

To: Bolotina, Olga

Subject: could you send draft of hazardous transport reso?

Ada Chan Policy Analyst

Office of Council President Pro Tem Rebecca D. Kaplan
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 243 Oakland, CA 94612
(o) 510-238-7083 (e) AChan1@oaklandnet.com
<Generic Coal_Oil_Petcoke_Resolution_v4.docx>

From: Danny Wan <wan.danny@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:02 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: eshack@igc.org
Subject:
Re: Meeitn with Councilmember Kalb
Commissioner Hamlin, myself and Joanne Karchmer are coming over now
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for making the time! Dan and I really appreciate it.
10:30am tomorrow (Wednesday) will work. Thanks again!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
From: Danny Wan [mailto:wan.danny@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:34 AM
To: eshack@igc.org
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Re: Meeitn with Councilmember Kalb
Unfortunately, this week is jam packed for me.
I have a meeting on Wednesday at 9 that should last an hour in my office. Would 10:30
a.m. work so I have some time to commute over to City Hall.
Danny
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:00 PM, <eshack@igc.org> wrote:
Correction: I am available Wednesday at 10, but I AM NOT available Tuesday at 3:00.
Earl Hamlin
-----Original Message----From: "Bolotina, Olga"
Sent: May 22, 2015 3:48 PM
To: Danny Wan
Cc: Earl Hamlin
Subject: RE: Meeitn with Councilmember Kalb

Greetings,
Im very sorry to miss your emails and phone calls from earlier today. Your emails just came into my
inbox an hour ago and I wasnt able to check my voice messages until a few minutes ago. Apparently
many of my colleagues experienced the same problem today. Again, please accept my apologies.
Could we meet on Wednesday at 10am? Tuesday at 3pm still works for us too. The topic is Coal
transports. Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
From: Danny Wan [mailto:wan.danny@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:00 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Earl Hamlin
Subject: Re: Meeitn with Councilmember Kalb
My best time is today at 1. So I may prepare to have needed information with me, what is the topic that
Councilmember Kalb wants to discuss?
On May 21, 2015 5:21 PM, "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Wan and Mr. Hamlin,
Hope this message finds you well.
Im reaching out on behalf of Councilmember Kalb to request a meeting with you. Please let me
know if one of the following dates/times work for you. Thank you!
?
?
?
?

Friday, May 22nd 1pm City Hall

Tuesday, May 26th between 1:30 and 4pm - City Hall
Wednesday, May 27th 9:30 to 10:30am City Hall
Wednesday, May 27th 12:30 to 1:30pm City Hall

Warmly,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.

Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix

From: Jessica Yarnall Loarie <jessica.yarnall@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 10:34 AM
To: Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Cc: Irene Gutierrez; Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: Meeting with Councilmember Dan Kalb on Friday at 10:30am
thanks, that'd be great. I pushed back our other call too.
Jessica
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Jess Dervin-Ackerman <jess.dervinackerman@sierraclub.org> wrote:
Dan is running a little late so we are waiting for him. I'll let you know when he's here
Sent by my thumbs, please excuse any typos!
On Jun 11, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Irene Gutierrez <igutierrez@earthjustice.org> wrote:
Hi
Thank you for organizing this.
Ill be able to join on the phone!
Best regards,
Irene
From: Jessica Yarnall Loarie [mailto:jessica.yarnall@sierraclub.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:40 AM
To: Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Irene Gutierrez
Subject: Re: Meeting with Councilmember Dan Kalb on Friday at 10:30am
we have our legal team meeting at 11 --do you think it will take more than 30
min? If so I will need to push the other call back a bit.
Thanks,
Jessica
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Jess Dervin-Ackerman <jess.dervinackerman@sierraclub.org> wrote:
Hi there,
Can we confirm this meeting with Dan and Olga at 10:30am tomorrow morning
about the Oakland Coal Exports? Irene, can you make it? I will be there in person
and Jessica can call in.
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: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:23 AM
To: Laura Wisland
Subject:
Re: Oakland coal export terminal
Laura, could you please meet Dan at Specialty's, 555 12th St, Oakland, CA 94607. Thank you.
Please feel free to text or call me at
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb, City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:SeeClickFix
----- Reply message ----From: "Laura Wisland" <LWisland@ucsusa.org>
To: "Kalb, Dan" <DKalb@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Subject: Oakland coal export terminal
Date: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 2:38 PM
Looking forward to meeting on Friday, Dan. Just a heads up that Adrienne will be joining us as well.
Thanks!
From: Kalb, Dan [mailto:DKalb@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:26 PM
To: Laura Wisland
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Re: Oakland coal export terminal
Hey Laura,
Hope you're doing well. I'd be more than happy to meet with you about this later this week.
Olga, please schedule a time for me to meet up with Laura at a nearby cafe sometime Wednesday,
Thursday, or Friday of this week.
Thanks,
-Dan
-Dan Kalb
Oakland City Councilmember
510-238-7001

file:///Z|/...s/2015%20-%209797%20-%20Sierra%20Club%20-%20coal%20et%20al/Olga/Re%20Oakland%20coal%20export%20terminal.txt[7/8/2015 10:40:34 PM]

On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, "Laura Wisland" <LWisland@ucsusa.org> wrote:

Hey Dan,
Just checking in to see if your team received this email. Would love a minute or two to
learn more about the Oakland terminal and the coal issue.
Thanks!
Laura
From: Laura Wisland
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Kalb, Dan (DKalb@oaklandnet.com)
Subject: Oakland coal export terminal
Hey Dan,
Hope all is well with you! Just wanted to check in and say that we are interested in
learning more about the proposed coal export terminal at the Port of Oakland. Is this
something that I could discuss with you or one of your staffers any time soon?
Best,
Laura
Laura Wisland
Senior Energy Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
500 12th St. Ste. 340
Oakland, CA 94607
Ph: (510) 809-1565
Email: lwisland@ucsusa.org
blog: http://blog.ucsusa.org/author/laura-wisland
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve
our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we
combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical
solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

file:///Z|/...s/2015%20-%209797%20-%20Sierra%20Club%20-%20coal%20et%20al/Olga/Re%20Oakland%20coal%20export%20terminal.txt[7/8/2015 10:40:34 PM]

From: Cook, Brigitte

Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:44 PM
To: Farmer, Casey; 'Jess Dervin-Ackerman'; Overman, Jason
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
RE: Oakland event on Fossil Fuels by rail for National Week of
Action: July 7th
Any update on the proposed time? Late morning or early afternoon would be preferable.
__________________________________________________
Brigitte Cook, Community Liaison\Scheduler
From: Farmer, Casey
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:12 PM
To: Jess Dervin-Ackerman; Overman, Jason
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Cook, Brigitte
Subject: RE: Oakland event on Fossil Fuels by rail for National Week of Action: July 7th
Looping in Brigitte who manages scheduling.
From: Jess Dervin-Ackerman [mailto:jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:08 PM
To: Overman, Jason
Cc: Farmer, Casey; Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Re: Oakland event on Fossil Fuels by rail for National Week of Action: July 7th
Evening, exact time not set yet. Will know more tomorrow, just wanted to give you a heads up.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Overman, Jason <JOverman@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Timing?
Jason Overman
Communications Director
Office of Council President Pro Tem Rebecca D. Kaplan
City of Oakland
o | 510-238-7082
e | JOverman@oaklandnet.com
On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:48 PM, "Jess Dervin-Ackerman" <jess.dervin-ackerman@sierraclub.org>
wrote:
Hi Olga, Casey, and Jason,
Hope this email finds you all well. I have already discussed this with Olga, but I'm not
sure she has talked with you about it yet.
I'm contacting you today to see if the council members would be available to attend and
speak at an event in Monday, July 7th to commemorate the year anniversary of the LacMegantic crude by rail disaster that took 47 lives. This is part of a National Week of
Action on Crude By Rail, and locally we will be adding coal and petcoke to make it about
the hazards of fossil fuels by rail.
We are just starting to organize the event, but the hope is to have representation from all
cities in the Bay Area that have already taken action on opposing crude and other

dangerous fossil fuels by rail and call on other cities and counties to do the same. So far
San Francisco (Environment Commission), Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond have
passed resolutions on this issue.
Are you available on that date? It would be in the evening but exact timing is still being
worked out. Preliminary location is Jack London Sq in Oakland because the rail lines run
right through the middle of the street, past businesses and homes.
Hope to hear back from you soon,
-Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Organizer
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

-Jess Dervin-Ackerman
Conservation Organizer
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

From: shilpa <shilpa@hipinvestor.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:15 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: Oakland Fossil Fule Divestment and Crude Oil by rail resolutions JUNE 10
Hi Olga,
I received this and wanted to offer my congratulations to you and the team for getting this up for
committee hearing. I just left you a message as well. How did it go? HIP would be happy to see
your report, if you'd like to share a copy. I know these things are part of a process and it takes
time. Congratulations on doing the footwork!
Thank you,
Shilpa
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shilpa Andalkar, Senior Vice President, www.HIPInvestor.com
HIP = Human Impact + Profit: The New Fundamentals of Investing.
Direct: +1-415-857-2520 Skype: andshilpa

Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended for the individuals addressed.
If you are not the
intended recipient, then you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution or further transmission or other
disclosure of this message and
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
reply email and delete
this message, including all attachments, immediately from your system and destroy any hard copy that may have been
made. No
representation is made on the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this e-mail, and the sender
does not accept liability
for any errors or omissions in the contents of this email. Thank you for your cooperation from HIP Investor Inc.
HIP Investor Inc., an Investment Adviser (IA) registered in California, Washington and Illinois; also serving clients in
Idaho, Iowa, New
York, Missouri, Wisconsin and DC
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Greetings!
We want to alert you to a couple of Oakland City Council Resolutions that are coming to the June 10th
Finance and Public Works Committees, respectively. Please join us at one and/or both meetings to speak
is support of these resolutions. Please feel out a speaker card in person before each item starts or on
line at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/SpeakerCard/OAK032373
Please see more information for speakers here:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/index.htm
June 10th Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza:

*
The Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution comes to the Finance and Management committee
starts at 9:15am in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor.
Please see the full resolution and the report here
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report_Divestment.pdf
Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319620&GUID=94125F85-78D446EB-BB5B-B1B0332A6181&Options=info|&Search=
City Councilmember Dan Kalb have authored a Resolution on Fossil Fuel Divestment. In short
the Resolution will prohibit the City of Oakland from holding in its investment portfolio any
investments and/or any ownership stake in Fossil Fuel companies. The Resolution directs the
City Administrator to examine the City's current financial holdings and divest from Fossil Fuel
companies and to perform periodic reviews of the Citys investment portfolio to ensure ongoing
compliance with the policy. The resolution also urges the Oakland Municipal Employees
Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) and the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Boards and other local and special
districts jurisdictions to adopt policies consistent with this Resolution.
*
Resolution Opposing Transportation of Hazardous Fossil Fuel Materials by Rail comes
to the Public Works Committee starts at 11:30am in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor
Please see the full resolution here:
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report%20(4)_Rail%20Transport.pdf
Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319613&GUID=EC6E51C4-F375414B-A717-D035A05510B6&Options=info|&Search=
This resolution, jointly authored by Councilmembers Gibson McElhaney, Kalb, and
Kaplan, opposes transportation of hazardous fossil fuel materials, including crude oil,
coal, and petroleum coke, along California waterways, through densely populated areas,
and through the City of Oakland.
We believe that each resolution expresses a strong position and helps to address the rapidly developing
climate crisis and potentially dangerous conditions--locally and throughout our planet--due, in large
part, to the burning of fossil fuels. We would like to thank 350.org and Sierra Club for helping to create
and move forward these important resolutions!
Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

From: James Irwin <jirwin@mayorsinnovation.org>

Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:23 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: Oakland Fossil Fule Divestment and Crude Oil by rail resolutions - JUNE
10
It's been a while now but wanted to pass along my congratulations on this huge success, and the
tremendous amount of hard work that went into making it happen. Kudos!
James
James Irwin
Senior Associate
608.262.6585
Mayors Innovation Project | Facebook
On 6/5/2014 9:36 PM, Bolotina, Olga wrote:
Greetings!
We want to alert you to a couple of Oakland City Council Resolutions that are coming to
the June 10th Finance and Public Works Committees, respectively. Please join us at one
and/or both meetings to speak is support of these resolutions. Please feel out a speaker
card in person before each item starts or on line at
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/SpeakerCard/O
AK032373 Please see more information for speakers here:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityClerk/s/SpeakerCard/index.htm
June 10th Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza:
*
The Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution comes to the Finance and Management
committee starts at 9:15am in the Sgt. Mark Dunakin Room - 1st Floor.
Please see the full resolution and the report here
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report_Divestment.pdf
Meeting details here:
https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319620&GUID=94125F8578D4-46EB-BB5B-B1B0332A6181&Options=info|&Search=
City Councilmember Dan Kalb have authored a Resolution on Fossil Fuel
Divestment. In short the Resolution will prohibit the City of Oakland from
holding in its investment portfolio any investments and/or any ownership stake
in Fossil Fuel companies. The Resolution directs the City Administrator to
examine the City's current financial holdings and divest from Fossil Fuel
companies and to perform periodic reviews of the Citys investment portfolio
to ensure ongoing compliance with the policy. The resolution also urges the
Oakland Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), the Oakland Police
and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) and the California Public Employees'
Retirement System (CalPERS) Boards and other local and special districts
jurisdictions to adopt policies consistent with this Resolution.
*
Resolution Opposing Transportation of Hazardous Fossil Fuel Materials by Rail
comes to the Public Works Committee starts at 11:30am in the Sgt. Mark
Dunakin Room - 1st Floor
Please see the full resolution here:
file:///C:/Users/bolot9o/Desktop/View%20Report%20(4)_Rail%20Transport.pdf
Meeting details here:

https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=319613&GUID=EC6E51C4F375-414B-A717-D035A05510B6&Options=info|&Search=
This resolution, jointly authored by Councilmembers Gibson McElhaney, Kalb,
and Kaplan, opposes transportation of hazardous fossil fuel materials, including
crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke, along California waterways, through
densely populated areas, and through the City of Oakland.
We believe that each resolution expresses a strong position and helps to address the
rapidly developing climate crisis and potentially dangerous conditions--locally and
throughout our planet--due, in large part, to the burning of fossil fuels. We would like to
thank 350.org and Sierra Club for helping to create and move forward these important
resolutions!
Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:23 PM
To: 'Chekal-Bain, Mark'; n.laforce@comcast.net; Karen Hester; Naomi Schiff;
Norman LaForce; Glenn Kirby; NACG ConsCommList; Igor Tregub;
andykelley@gmail.com; Andrs Soto; cmargulis@goldengateaudubon.org;
bgunston@gmail.com; Rebecca Saltzman (rebecca.saltzman@gmail.com);
Mimi HO (info@apen4ej.org)
Subject:
RE: Oil by Rail meeting in Berkeley: June 25, 2014
Attachments: Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland Resolution_1383417_1_FINAL.pdf;
Fossil Fuel Divestment_Resolution_1394666_Final_Published.pdf
Hello,
Mark, thank you for letting us know!
We have good news from Oakland. City Council just passed two Fossil Fuel resolutions last Tuesday. One
Fossil Fuel Divestment (Councilmember Kalb) and another is Opposing Fossil Fuel transport by rail
(Councilmembers Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan). Both resolutions are attached.
All the very best,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Chekal-Bain, Mark [mailto:Mark.Chekal-Bain@asm.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:05 PM
To: n.laforce@comcast.net; Karen Hester; Naomi Schiff; Norman LaForce; Glenn Kirby; NACG
ConsCommList; Igor Tregub; Bolotina, Olga; andykelley@gmail.com; Andrs Soto;
cmargulis@goldengateaudubon.org; bgunston@gmail.com; Rebecca Saltzman
(rebecca.saltzman@gmail.com); Mimi HO (info@apen4ej.org)
Subject: Oil by Rail meeting in Berkeley: June 25, 2014
Dear Friends:
The CA Energy Commission will be holding a stakeholder meeting at Berkeley City College on Crude Oil,
including the oil by rail issue.
Commissioners Scott, Weisenmiller, and Douglas will be there.
CPUC commissioner Peevey is also confirmed to be there.
It will be June 25 at 9am, Berkeley City College Auditorium
Mark Chekal-Bain, District Director (AD-15)
Office of Assemblymember Nancy Skinner
510-286-1400 voice

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:22 PM
To: 'R Solomon'
Subject:
RE: Rail transport moratorium
Attachments: Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland
Resolution_1383417_1_FINAL.pdf
Hello Richard,
Thank you for caring about this issue!
Attached is the full resolution. This resolution was adopted unanimously!
Thanks again!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: R Solomon [mailto:risolom@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:37 AM
To: Stoffmacher, Bruce
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: Re: Rail transport moratorium
Per this report, http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/06/oakland-city-council-moves-coal-transportban/, the City Council passed a resolution against 'the transportation of coal and other fossil
fuels' through the city last night.
Does this include the oil from North Dakota?
Did Libby vote in favor of this resolution?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Stoffmacher, Bruce <BStoffmacher@oaklandnet.com>
wrote:
Passed in public works, on consent portion of Council tonight:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1747455&GUID=D41B7760-10B0-455E-B1F588894FBAD097&Options=&Search=

From: R Solomon [mailto:risolom@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:42 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Stoffmacher, Bruce; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: Rail transport moratorium

Olga,
I have checked the Public Works Committee website to follow up on Council member Kalb's
resolution. Apparently it was brought up for discussion on 5/27 and then again on 6/10. As of
6/13, I could not find what the outcome was of these discussions.
Would you let me know where this stands at this point?
Per an email that I got from Senator Feinstein, the DOT has set up a program of 'spot checks' to
try to ensure that the railroads engage in safer practices with the transport of tar sands oil, etc. I
wrote her back saying that this was an effort to fix the situation around the edges. Ie, that a more
significant set of rule changes, such as requiring the use of double hulled cars, need to be
implemented before this volatile oil is allowed to pass through urban areas like the East Bay.
Until these better policies are in place I suggested that a moratorium is in order.
What is happening with the resolution?
Richard Solomon

From: R Solomon <risolom@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:31 AM
To: Stoffmacher, Bruce
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Schaaf, Libby
Subject:
Re: Rail transport moratorium
Bruce: Thanks for your clarification on the resolution.
Olga: Thanks for sending me a copy of it. Thank Council Member Kalb for working on it.
Libby: Thanks for supporting this.
After reading through the resolution, I have two comments to make.
First, I appreciate and endorse how comprehensive it is in covering much more than just Baaken
crude oil and/or Tar Sands oil. Petcoke, in particular, is very damaging to health and the
environment. There are huge piles of the stuff sitting near in Ontario Canada near Detroit which
then gets shipped to China where it is burned. It is clear what this is doing to the air, etc in Asia.
Second, I am disappointed that the resolution does not call for a moratorium on the shipment of
any of these fuels until safer and cleaner modes of transport are in place. CEQA and the
Governor should go to DOT and strongly urge that it not allow for the transport of these fuels
unless much more comprehensive safety measures have been implemented. The railroad and
oil/gas companies should not have free rein to engage in these activities without much more
oversight and more thorough protections in place.
My wife, daughter, and grandchild all have asthma related respiratory problems. The latter two
live near Emeryville where these trains travel. It is not good for them to be exposed to the dust
from coal, etc.
At the risk of being an alarmist, it is all but certain that an accident/derailment will occur in the
months/years to come. By then it will be too late for the people living nearby, etc. The oil/gas
companies will fight any moratorium with everything they have. But it is the best way to go, in
my opinion because otherwise we are allowing these companies to destroy our planet and have a
profoundly negative impact on the lives of people living nearby the wells, the rail lines, the
refineries, etc.
Richard

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Stoffmacher, Bruce <BStoffmacher@oaklandnet.com>

wrote:
Passed unanimously. I believe its not specific to point of origin of the oil, and that its not
really a ban but moves the City to support efforts to reform Fed law and push for a full CEQA
of the proposed refinery in Central CA where the crude oil would be refined. Olga is more
familiar than me.
Bruce
From: R Solomon [mailto:risolom@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:37 AM

To: Stoffmacher, Bruce

Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: Re: Rail transport moratorium
Per this report, http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/06/oakland-city-council-moves-coal-transportban/, the City Council passed a resolution against 'the transportation of coal and other fossil
fuels' through the city last night.
Does this include the oil from North Dakota?
Did Libby vote in favor of this resolution?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Stoffmacher, Bruce <BStoffmacher@oaklandnet.com>
wrote:
Passed in public works, on consent portion of Council tonight:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1747455&GUID=D41B7760-10B0-455E-B1F588894FBAD097&Options=&Search=

From: R Solomon [mailto:risolom@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:42 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Stoffmacher, Bruce; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: Rail transport moratorium
Olga,
I have checked the Public Works Committee website to follow up on Council member Kalb's
resolution. Apparently it was brought up for discussion on 5/27 and then again on 6/10. As of
6/13, I could not find what the outcome was of these discussions.
Would you let me know where this stands at this point?
Per an email that I got from Senator Feinstein, the DOT has set up a program of 'spot checks' to
try to ensure that the railroads engage in safer practices with the transport of tar sands oil, etc. I
wrote her back saying that this was an effort to fix the situation around the edges. Ie, that a more
significant set of rule changes, such as requiring the use of double hulled cars, need to be
implemented before this volatile oil is allowed to pass through urban areas like the East Bay.
Until these better policies are in place I suggested that a moratorium is in order.
What is happening with the resolution?
Richard Solomon

From: Stoffmacher, Bruce

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:32 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: Railroad transport of crude oil
Thx
- Via Mobile Phone
Bruce Stoffmacher
Community Liaison / Policy Analyst
Office of Councilmember Libby Schaaf,
City of Oakland - District 4
o: (510) 238-7041
f: (510) 238-6129
bstoffmacher@oaklandnet.com
To subscribe to our newsletter, click: here!
Safety Tips:
Safety Tips:http://www.safeoakland.com/safety-tips
D4 Crime Data:http://www.safeoakland.com/get-informed/crime-analysis
Cameras: http://safeoakland.com/safety-tips/security-cameras
On May 6, 2014, at 8:57 PM, "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
We are preparing the Rules request.
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Stoffmacher, Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:05 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: RE: Railroad transport of crude oil
What are CM Kalbs plans?
From: R Solomon [mailto:risolom@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:34 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Stoffmacher, Bruce; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: Re: Railroad transport of crude oil
Olga,
Thank you for your explanation of CM Kalb's plans in regards to this issue.
Although my wife and I are not constituents of Mr. Kalb, we would like to be kept
abreast of how this develops through the Rules Committee and the full Council.
The frequency and severity of derailments make it clear that it is risky to move a

product like crude oil from Bakken and other such oil fields through large,
densely populated urban areas like Oakland. We have encouraged our council
member, Libby Schaff, to support efforts to ban the transport of such products
until the DOT in Washington DC has done much more to ensure the safety of this
transport. Newer, double hulled railroad cars, for example, should be
required. Ugrading of track should also be done.
Thank you again.
Chihoko and Richard Solomon
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
wrote:
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your concern regarding this significant issue.
We are putting forward a resolution regarding Railroad transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke. The Rules request will be submitted for this weeks Rules Committee meeting.
Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: R Solomon [mailto:risolom@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:29 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Schaaf, Libby; Stoffmacher, Bruce
Subject: Railroad transport of crude oil
Although we wrote you in April, we have not heard back from you about Council
member Kalb's plans regarding the transport of crude oil through Oakland by rail.
As you may know, just this week there was another derailment. This time it
happened in Virginia. Per the reports we read, no one was hurt. But the fact that
a derailment happened again confirms how worrisome this issue is.
Please let us know what CM Kalb plans to do about the transport of this highly
explosive crude oil through our community. Thank you.
Chiho and Richard Solomon

From: Stern, Hunter <hls5@IBEW1245.com>

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:08 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
RE: Request to meet
Attachments: SCP Resource Summary GHG Analysis.pdf
Olga,
Thanks for the heads up and thanks for the time to meet with Council Member Kalb.
Wanted to pass the document that we discussed yesterday.
The first is the Sonoma Clean Power document which lays out their Resource Plans and their
commitments to the Community and renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions. This is
interesting in a number of respects:
*
While they hope to do more, SCP is going to provide the State mandated amount of RPS
renewable energy (i.e., the minimum amount and the same amount that PG&E or Alameda
Municipal Power must meet) (SEE APPENDIX)
*
SCP made a commitment to count GHG emissions consistent with the CARB rules; they out
agencies that do not, including City of Palo Alto and MCE. These agencies claim renewable
energy through greenwashing dirty energy with RECs.
*
The document provides an excellent background in the laws that mandate RPS and the
regulations. (SEE PAGES 10-14)
Hunter
From: Bolotina, Olga [mailto:OBolotina@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:34 AM
To: Stern, Hunter
Subject: Re: Request to meet
Hello Hunter,
We decided to reschedule the resolution to another date. We'll keep you in the loop to when.
Thank you,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb, City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:SeeClickFix
----- Reply message ----From: "Stern, Hunter" <hls5@IBEW1245.com>

To: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>

Subject: Request to meet
Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 10:51 PM
Very good. Thanks.
Attached are some pieces of information related to MCEs operations. While one is a composite piece
assembled by us, the majority are documents published (but not widely distributed) by MCE. We will
spend a few minutes reviewing them on Monday.
See you then,
Hunter
From: Bolotina, Olga [mailto:OBolotina@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:20 PM
To: Stern, Hunter
Subject: Re: Request to meet
Hello Hunter,
Sorry for the delay. Monday at 12pm will work. Dan however might want to call and talk to you
before then. Is there any time tomorrow that might be good for you? Thank you!
I forwarded your comments to him.
Thank you,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb, City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:SeeClickFix
----- Reply message ----From: "Stern, Hunter" <hls5@IBEW1245.com>
To: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "'Victor Uno'" <victor_uno@ibew.org>, "'Terry Sandoval'" <terry@alamedalabor.org>,
"'Andreas Cluver'" <andreas@btcalameda.org>, "'Vickie Carson,'" <vcarson@ifpte21.org>,
"Fortier, Al" <AWF2@IBEW1245.com>
Subject: Request to meet
Date: Wed, May 6, 2015 2:47 PM
Olga,
Two things. First, I hadnt heard back and now my schedule has changed and I am no longer able to
meet with the City Council member on Friday at any time. But I can meet on Monday at the times you
indicated, either 10 am or 12 noon.

Second, I have reviewed the Resolution and its attachment. There are significant questions regarding
the veracity of both the Resolution language itself and, in particular, the attached listed goals of the
Resolution. We can discuss these as needed but the fundamental issue is comparable rates to PG&E and
local project development. MCE has NOT developed any projects, in Marin or elsewhere over 5 years of
operations. Sonoma Clean Power has discussed local project development but is not planning any at
present and has told us that they will not do so for at least another 3 years.
The bottom line is your Resolution misleads City residents into concluding that the Alameda CCA will
build local projects and put local people to work while charging less than PG&E. This is false. Both MCE
and SCP opted to charge PG&E rates and sign PPA with dirty companies like Shell and Constellation to
obtain their power.
Happy to explain this in detail on Monday,
Hunter
From: Stern, Hunter
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 10:05 AM
To: 'Bolotina, Olga'; Josie Camacho
Cc: Victor Uno; Terry Sandoval; Andreas Cluver; Vickie Carson,
Subject: RE: Request to meet
Olga,
It was good to talk yesterday and many thanks for the Draft.
Attached please find the Alameda Labor Council Resolution on a Labor Friendly CCA. Also attached is a
Fact Sheet that we used to introduce the Resolution to Alameda County elected officials and candidates
last summer. (I have updated the document to reflect a few changes in the last six months.)
I could meet this Friday afternoon. Either 1 pm or 3:30 would work.
Please let me know if there is any further information you require.
Hunter
From: Bolotina, Olga [mailto:OBolotina@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 6:45 PM
To: Josie Camacho
Cc: Stern, Hunter; Victor Uno; Terry Sandoval; Andreas Cluver; Vickie Carson,
Subject: RE: Request to meet
Hello,
Hunter, great talking with you. Please find the resolution attached.
The dates that Dan and I could meet:
? Thursday, May 7th between noon to 2pm
? Friday, May 8th between noon to 11am 12pm, between 1pm 2pm or 3:30pm 5pm
? Monday, May 11th at 10am, or noon to 1pm
Please let me know what would work.

Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 12:14 PM
To: 'Linda Rudolph'
Cc: Jeff Hoffman
Subject:
RE: update on op=ed
Attachments: DRAFT Fossil Fuels Divest OpEd_2014_DK.docx
Hello,
Sorry for the delay,
Here is Dans edits. Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
From: Linda Rudolph [mailto:rudolph.linda@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 5:24 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Jeff Hoffman
Subject: update on op=ed
Hi Olga - we now have Mayor of Richmond also agreed to sign on..
I have the email address for whom to send to at the Bee, along with an explanation as to who all
is signing.
thanks again

From: Michael Lerner <rabbilerner.tikkun@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:07 PM
To: Rev. Daniel Buford
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Lyles, Reginald (RLyles@oaklandnet.com); Pastor J.
Alfred Smith; Leon, Ray T.; Dwight <d2dwilliams@comcast.net>
(d2dwilliams@comcast.net) (d2dwilliams@comcast.net); Reid,
Larry; Sandra Davis; nmalloy@cbecal.org; Nehanda Imara; Ambrose
F. Carroll (alpha3bc@earthlink.net); Tara; Rev. Jackie; Pastor
Emeritus; Lynn Gottlieb (rabbilynn@earthlink.net);
doblake@fellowshipsf.org
Subject:
Re: Water Reclamation campaign for Oakland
Dear Daniel,
Congratulations on this wise move to involve our communities in preparing
for the deepening and depressing consequences of climate change. The
drought is an issue that will be at the top of our concerns in the coming
years.
I wonder if you would consider using the considerable clout of your
community and the many people who respect and listen to you for a related
goal. Would you please approach Congresswoman Barbara Lee and U.S.
Senators Boxer and Feinstein to urge them to introduce a bill to build a set
of pipe lines from Alaska, Canada, and the state of Washington to carry
water in sufficient quantity to alleviate the potential catastrophe facing
residents of California, Arizona and New Mexico. While Democrats and
Republicans both have championed the ill-advised transport of oil and coal
that will only worsen our global environmental crisis, few have joined
together to provide ways to transport the water we need. If they can carry
oil and coal, they can carry water.
These are stop-gap measures, but we need them. For a longer-term
response to our environmental crisis, I hope you'll read the ESRA-Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
which we at Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual Progressives have proposed
(read it please at www.tikkun.org/esra). It takes a much more
comprehensive approach to dealing with the forces in government and
corporations that have resolutely refused to take dramatic action to save the
environment. I'm much sorrowed that Congresswoman Barbara Lee, whom
we approached close to a year ago on this, and with the support of Pastor
Emeritus J. Alfred Smith Sr, has not been willing to introduce a resolution of
support for this proposal. I'm hoping that you and others will get behind it so
that at least we can get the Oakland City Council to endorse it.
Warm regards and blessings,
Rabbi Michael Lerner
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Rev. Daniel Buford <revdbuford@allen-temple.org> wrote:
Dear Olga,
It was good to meet you again so soon after the Rockefeller launch designating Oakland as a
Resilient City. Allen Temple is a 95 year old institution in Oakland precisely because
resilience is part of the Spiritual DNA that has enabled us to survive and thrive during many hard
times. I am writing this e-mail in response to the request made by you and Mr. Ray Leon who
works for City Council Member Larry Reid. I hope that you can share this e-mail with Mr. Dan
Kalb. I left a note with the Mayors office about this after hearing her presentation at the
Resilient City event yesterday. A fuller version idea that I presented to you in the city Hall lobby

is as follows:
Given the fact that we are now in the fifth year of a drought that is of an unknown duration The
City of Oakland, businesses, churches, synagogues, schools, property owners, residents, should
begin an immediate campaign to come up with water reclamation and storage strategies before
the next rain season begins at the end of 2015. This is a conversation that we are already
having internally at Allen Temple in acknowledgement of the severe water shortage that faces
Alameda County for the foreseeable future. In my opinion a such a strategy should be designed
for all water consumers in Oakland. I am focusing primarily on rainwater reclamation and
storage. We all need technical assistance in water reclamation options and storage possibilities.
The City of Oakland and EBMUD should take a leadership role in publicizing water
conservation strategies providing workshops ,seminars, and resources for the public. Perhaps the
Rockefeller Foundation would fund such an effort as it invests in Oaklands resilience. There are
numerous local environmental scientists and activists whose ideas and expertise could be utilized
for this concept to work well in the short and long term.
While states like Florida are outlawing any discussion of climate change as if it has never
happened, Oakland, California should employ some ancient wisdom found in the Bible regarding
adaptation to climate change. Genesis chapters 41 and 42 describe the conditions in Egypt just
prior to a famine caused by a drought that lasted for seven years. Joseph created a seven year
food storage campaign for the Egyptian government prior to the famine hitting that saved the
nation from sure starvation. Oakland should design a campaign that encompasses the next seven
years of opportunities to save more water with each rain season. Perhaps the experts at EBMUD
could identify goaIs that are countable and measureable. I have copied others in this e-mail in the
hope that they will also weigh-in on this topic and address a problem that has an impact on all
life in Oakland
Sincerely,
Rev. Daniel A. Buford

-Editor, Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org 510 644 1200 email:

RabbiLerner.tikkun@gmail.com
Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives www.spiritualprogressives.org
Rabbi, Beyt Tikkun Synagogue-Without-Walls in S.F. and Berkeley, Ca. www.beyttikkun.org
Author: Jewish Renewal: A path to healing and transformation; Embracing Israel/Palestine;
The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right; Spirit Matters; The
Politics of Meaning; with Cornel West: Jews and Blacks--Let the Healing Begin; The Socialism
of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left; Surplus Powerlessness: The Psychodynamics of Daily Life
and Work; and more.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Margaret Rossoff
Luby, Oliver
Re: Crude by rail
Friday, March 20, 2015 6:43:40 PM

Oliver,
Thank you for this. I will look into it further next week.
Margaret
From: "Luby, Oliver" <OLuby@oaklandnet.com>
To: Margaret Rossoff <margaret.rossoff@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: Crude by rail

Margaret,
You may already know this, but Ive heard that there is some comprehensive federal legislation on
this issue (I dont recall who the sponsors are) and that Tony Thurmonds staff are working on
coordinating regional support. You might try calling his Oakland office to see who is working on the
issue, or I can find out for you.
Oliver
From: Margaret Rossoff [mailto:margaret.rossoff@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:42 PM
To: Luby, Oliver
Subject: Re: Crude by rail

Oliver,
Thank you so much for following through with this and responding to my email. I will study
the links and share them with the other folks I am working with on this issue. I really
appreciate the update!
Margaret
From: "Luby, Oliver" <OLuby@oaklandnet.com>
To: Margaret Rossoff <margaret.rossoff@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:21 PM
Subject: FW: Crude by rail

My colleague, Olga, spoke with Dan about the last League of California Cities meeting.
Apparently, they body is proposing regulating the activity rather than an outright ban. I suppose
that is was the comment I sent you (second link in last email) is about.

From: Luby, Oliver

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:18 PM
To: 'Margaret Rossoff'
Subject: RE: Crude by rail

Hi Margaret,
Thanks for checking in on this. Last I heard, the League committed to studying the issue in
September, as I mentioned to you before. I will check with Dan on whether anything has been
done since then and get back you. However, I just did a search of their website and a bunch of
materials came up:
http://www.cacities.org/specialpages/search.aspx?searchtext=crude&searchmode=anyword
It appears that they have stated a public position to the Federal government opposing crude by rail:
http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Policy-Advocacy-Section/Federal-Issues/2014Federal-Letters/Comments-on-PHMSA-201-0082
Will let you know what else I find out.
Oliver
From: Margaret Rossoff [mailto:margaret.rossoff@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 10:24 PM
To: Luby, Oliver
Subject: Crude by rail

Oliver,
When Dan Kalb spoke to the League of California Cities about Crude by rail in September,
did they end up taking a position on this? If not, is there follow-up happening?
Thanks for any updates.
Margaret

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Kalb, Dan
Kevin Mulvey
Bolotina, Olga
RE: Crude Oil trains
Friday, January 16, 2015 8:24:00 PM
Oil_Petcoke_Crude_By Rail_Oakland Resolution_1383417_1_FINAL.pdf

Hi Kevin,

Attached is the Resolution that we passed last year.

The League of CA Cities is also working on some things relating to the safety issues
surrounding these trains.

Thanks for your concern. Please keep in touch.

Best,
-Dan

--- ---

DAN KALB

Oakland City Councilmember, District One

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2 nd floor
Oakland, CA 94612

510-238-7001
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityCouncil/o/District1/index.htm

To sign up for my District One Community Newsletter, please click here.

From: Kevin Mulvey [mailto:kevin.mulvey@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Kalb, Dan
Subject: Crude Oil trains

Hi Dan First just to say thanks for taking time to meet last Saturday. I enjoyed our discussion.
Second I wanted to follow up to see if you could send along the text of the Oakland
resolution expressing concern about the trains. I will be attending a meeting this Sunday to
discuss coordination of local community efforts to push back on the expansion of these
trains.
I really appreciate your concern about this issue, as well as others that impact the quality of
life in our city.
Best regards.

Kevin

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Laura Wisland
Kalb, Dan
Bolotina, Olga
Re: Oakland coal export terminal
Monday, June 01, 2015 5:11:29 PM

Thanks! Friday works best for me- morning is better but I can make anything work. Adrienne might
come too if she has time.
Laura

From: Kalb, Dan [mailto:DKalb@oaklandnet.com]

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 06:25 PM
To: Laura Wisland
Cc: Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Subject: Re: Oakland coal export terminal

Hey Laura,

Hope you're doing well. I'd be more than happy to meet with you about this later
this week.
Olga, please schedule a time for me to meet up with Laura at a nearby cafe
sometime Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday of this week.
Thanks,
-Dan
-Dan Kalb
Oakland City Councilmember
510-238-7001

On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, "Laura Wisland" <LWisland@ucsusa.org> wrote:

Hey Dan,

Just checking in to see if your team received this email. Would love a minute or two to
learn more about the Oakland terminal and the coal issue.

Thanks!

Laura

From: Laura Wisland

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Kalb, Dan (DKalb@oaklandnet.com)
Subject: Oakland coal export terminal


Hey Dan,

Hope all is well with you! Just wanted to check in and say that we are interested in
learning more about the proposed coal export terminal at the Port of Oakland. Is this
something that I could discuss with you or one of your staffers any time soon?

Best,

Laura

Laura Wisland
Senior Energy Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
500 12th St. Ste. 340
Oakland, CA 94607
Ph: (510) 809-1565
Email: lwisland@ucsusa.org
blog: http://blog.ucsusa.org/author/laura-wisland

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve
our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we
combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical
solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Laura Wisland
Kalb, Dan
Bolotina, Olga
RE: Oakland coal export terminal
Tuesday, June 02, 2015 2:39:03 PM

Looking forward to meeting on Friday, Dan. Just a heads up that Adrienne will be joining us as well.

Thanks!

From: Kalb, Dan [mailto:DKalb@oaklandnet.com]

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:26 PM
To: Laura Wisland
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Re: Oakland coal export terminal

Hey Laura,

Hope you're doing well. I'd be more than happy to meet with you about this later this week.

Olga, please schedule a time for me to meet up with Laura at a nearby cafe sometime Wednesday,
Thursday, or Friday of this week.

Thanks,
-Dan

-Dan Kalb
Oakland City Councilmember
510-238-7001

On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, "Laura Wisland" <LWisland@ucsusa.org> wrote:

Hey Dan,

Just checking in to see if your team received this email. Would love a minute or two to
learn more about the Oakland terminal and the coal issue.

Thanks!

Laura

From: Laura Wisland

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Kalb, Dan (DKalb@oaklandnet.com)
Subject: Oakland coal export terminal


Hey Dan,

Hope all is well with you! Just wanted to check in and say that we are interested in
learning more about the proposed coal export terminal at the Port of Oakland. Is this
something that I could discuss with you or one of your staffers any time soon?

Best,

Laura

Laura Wisland
Senior Energy Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
500 12th St. Ste. 340
Oakland, CA 94607
Ph: (510) 809-1565
Email: lwisland@ucsusa.org
blog: http://blog.ucsusa.org/author/laura-wisland

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve
our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we
combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical
solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Karen Hester
lynettemcelhaney@gmail.com
naomi@17th.com; Kalb, Dan; Margaret Gordon; Wald, Zachary
Re: OAKLAND SAYS NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE
Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:07:59 PM

Thanks for your leadership on this issuelets work to make it politically untenable for Tagami
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

On May 14, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Lynette McElhaney <lynettemcelhaney@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Karen,

OAKLAND SAYS NO! TO COAL SHIPMENTS AT THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE

The recent 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.
Lynette Gibson McElhaney, President of the Oakland City Council, is unequivocal in her
opposition to coal being exported from City-owned lands, "West Oakland cannot be
subjected to another dirty industry in its backyard. We were told that this new terminal on
City property would increase economic growth, but I see Coal exports as the Trojan Horse in
the development of the Oakland Army Base - it is not the type of economic development
that we want - no thank you!."
Air quality and public health have long been critical issues for West Oakland residents West Oakland children are admitted to the hospital with asthma complications at a higher
rate than almost anywhere else in California. The West Oakland Environmental Indicators
Project - a community-based environmental justice organization - has been fighting for
years to reduce the toxic diesel particulate emissions that come from the heavy trucking
and shipping activity nearby.
Says McElhaney, Since coal was not contemplated to be exported when the Army Base
Development project was approved, the community has not yet had the chance to make
their voices heard on this subject. This is unacceptable 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 Commissioners 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.
The decision to ship coal from the Oakland waterfront 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 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."
Yours, with deep Oakland love,

Lynette Gibson McElhaney

President of the Oakland City Council

Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney

PO Box 72144
Oakland CA 94612 United States

If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe

Not paid for at taxpayer expense

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Salinas, Victoria
Kalb, Dan
Bolotina, Olga; Flores, John; McElhaney, Lynette
RE: Transmittal of Letters re: Transport of Hazardous Fossil Fuels (per Council Resolution 85054)
Thursday, March 05, 2015 7:48:00 AM

Hi Councilmember Kalb,

We looked into whether another resolution would be needed to send a letter to the San Luis Obispo
County Planning Commission, and dont think it will be necessary. I can talk off line with Olga about
exactly what youd like to see go into the letter.
Kind Regards,

Victoria

Victoria Inez Salinas

Deputy City Administrator | Chief Resilience Officer
Office of the City Administrator
City of Oakland
Direct: (510) 238-3487
Email: vsalinas@oaklandnet.com
www.oaklandnet.com

From: Kalb, Dan

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:39 PM
To: Salinas, Victoria
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Flores, John; McElhaney, Lynette
Subject: RE: Transmittal of Letters re: Transport of Hazardous Fossil Fuels (per Council Resolution
85054)
Importance: High

Hi Victoria,

Thanks for getting this done.

Additionally, there is a specific crude oil terminal project in San Luis Obispo County that, if built,
would facilitate the increased transportation of crude oil by rail. The City of San Jose has already
submitted a formal letter in opposition to this project. I believe the letter was sent to the San Luis
Obispo County Planning Commission.

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning/environmental/EnvironmentalNotices/railproject.htm

Is the resolution that we approved last year sufficient to have the City Administrator send a letter to
the SLO County Planning Commission in opposition to the project, or do we need to submit a newer,
more specific resolution? Time is short.

Thanks,
-Dan


--- ---

DAN KALB

Oakland City Councilmember, District One

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2 nd floor
Oakland, CA 94612

510-238-7001
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityCouncil/o/District1/index.htm

To sign up for my District One Community Newsletter, please click here.

From: Salinas, Victoria

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Campbell Washington, Annie; Schaaf, Libby; Simons, Adam J.; Nosakhare, Shereda; Kalb, Dan;
Anne Campbell Washington; Bolotina, Olga; English, Jamila A.
Cc: DeVries, Joe; Flores, John; Hom, Donna; Deloach Reed, Teresa; Eide, Cathey
Subject: Transmittal of Letters re: Transport of Hazardous Fossil Fuels (per Council Resolution 85054)

Dear All,

The letters to various city, state, and national leaders and organizations regarding Oaklands
opposition to the transportation of hazardous fossil fuels are going out in the mail today.

For your records, please find attached a copy of the letters signed by Interim City Administrator
Flores, as requested in Resolution 85054).

Kind Regards,
Victoria

Victoria Inez Salinas

Deputy City Administrator | Chief Resilience Officer
Office of the City Administrator
City of Oakland
Direct: (510) 238-3487
Email: vsalinas@oaklandnet.com
www.oaklandnet.com

From: Campbell Washington, Annie

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Salinas, Victoria
Cc: Anne Campbell Washington; Schaaf, Libby; Nosakhare, Shereda; Bolotina, Olga; Simons, Adam J.;
English, Jamila A.; DeVries, Joe
Subject: Re: Bakker crude oil

Hi Victoria,

That is great news. Yes, will you please CC me and Richard Solomon -- his address is below.
He will be thrilled that these letters went out.
Thank you for your work on this.
Warmest regards,
Annie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 17, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Salinas, Victoria <VSalinas@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Annie,
There was a resolution passed in May (Resolution 85054) that called for a variety of
letters to be sent to different state/federal representatives, regional organizations and
authorities, and other municipalities, stating that Oakland opposes the transportation
of crude oil and other hazardous materials through its city limits and environmentally
sensitive areas. Joe DeVries and I have drafted those letters and they should be going
out by the end of this week, signed by the City Administrator.

Well send you all copies of the signed letters if youd like.

Best,
Victoria

Victoria Inez Salinas

Deputy City Administrator | Chief Resilience Officer
Office of the City Administrator
City of Oakland
Direct: (510) 238-3487
Email: vsalinas@oaklandnet.com
www.oaklandnet.com

From: Anne Campbell Washington [mailto:annecampbellwashington@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:12 AM
To: Schaaf, Libby; Nosakhare, Shereda; Salinas, Victoria
Cc: Bolotina, Olga; Simons, Adam J.; English, Jamila A.; Campbell Washington, Annie
Subject: Bakker crude oil

Dear Mayor Schaaf and Victoria,

Is this something you are actively working on?
Thank you,
Annie

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: R Solomon <risolom@gmail.com>

Date: Friday, February 6, 2015
Subject: Email corresppndence
To: Anne Campbell Washington <annecampbellwashington@gmail.com>
Annie,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am impressed, and pleased, that you
did so at 5:31 AM no less! You ARE an early bird who tries to take care
of some business before you get busy with the day's activities. I used to
do that as well before I retired a few years ago.

I am pleased you recalled my cc'ing you. I did so in hopes that you'd

indicate your interest, concern, and willingness to engage with this issue
at that time. Sorry if my being indirect left you confused about our
wishes.

We are very, very concerned about the prospects of more Bakken crude
being shipped via rail thru the East Bay. This stuff is extremely volatile
because of the extent to which natural gas is contained in it. Remember
the accident in Ontario where 47 people were killed because of a
runaway train?!? There have been other, less publicized incidents as
well. Thousands of people live in close proximity to the rail lines which
are already being used to transport this crude oil. Phillips is proposing to
increase its shipments without adequate communication systems, using
old single hulled tanker cars, etc. It wants the DOT in DC to give it many
years to work up to replacing the single hulled cars, for example.

The State Legislature has passed some 'improved' regs but these are still
woefully inadequate. State Senator Hancock and Assemblymember
Thurmond have not replied to emails I have sent them expressing our
concerns and asking that they do more about this issue.

Mayor Libby has instructed Victoria Salinas, Chief Resilience Officer, to

look into how the City can implement the resolution which the City
Council passed noting its opposition to this transport. Ms. Salinas wrote
me on 1/31 that they are 'still working' on this.

Here is what my wife and I would like you to do:

Contact Victoria and the Mayor to indicate your interest and to encourage
them to move on this issue quickly.

Bring it up for discussion with your colleagues on the City Council to see
if/how some of them would like to do more about it.

Eg, reiterate the need to put a moratorium on any transport of this crude
until after double hulled cars are being used.

Encourage the Mayor to contact the mayors of Berkeley and Richmond to

see how they can coordinate their efforts.

Encourage the Mayor to contact other cities' mayors along the rail lines
to see if a coalition of cities along with the Counties of Alameda, Contra
Costa, Santa Clara, etc can engage with the State and the DOT in this
situation. The city of Martinez had a meeting on 2/3 about this issue, for
example.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_27437741/rodeo-refinerys-propane-andbutane-recovery-project-be

Contact JessDervin-Ackerman at the Sierra Club to see what they are doing, how you
might engage with them, etc. She can be reached at: jess.dervinackerman@sierraclub.org

I used to work for Santa Barbara County so I know that 'the wheels of
government turn slowly' at times. But I also know that 'the squeaky
wheel can get the grease.' We hope you will become a squeaky wheel
regarding this important issue which could be catastrophic.

Thanks in advance for your help with this.

Richard

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Anne Campbell Washington

<annecampbellwashington@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Richard,

Thank you very much for your email. I do remember your emails to Mayor
Schaaf and Bruce in December. They seemed to very pointedly be addressed to
them and you mentioned that you would contact me in the future, so I felt that it
wasn't my place to weigh in since I wasn't in office yet. I apologize if that
seemed rude at the time.
Please let me know how I can be helpful at this time. I would be more than
happy to learn about your issue and discern what we can do to be helpful. I
completely agree that engaging with constituents is my number one priority and
I'm eager to do so.
Warmest regards,
Annie
Annie Campbell Washington
Oakland City Councilmember, District 4
(510) 238-7004
On Friday, February 6, 2015, R Solomon <risolom@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the first newsletter. We look forward to hearing about and supporting

your work for us in District 4

where we live
and the City.
You noted you intend to reply to 'each and every phone call and email.' We sent
you one about our concerns regarding the transport of Bakken crude oil via rail
in December. You never replied.
We hope you will live up to this commitment.
We believe that engaging with constituents' concerns should be the
number 1 priority for an elected representative.

Chiho and Richard Solomon

Oakland 94611

THE MESA REFINERY WATCH GROUP

www.mesarefinerywatch.com
NEWSLETTER: January 14, 2015

CONTENTS
DONT HAVE TIME TO READ IT ALL?
Pick The Contents That Interest You -- Then Click On The Desired Red Page Numbers
A. Whats NEW That You Need To Know:

Page

1. Public Hearing Delayed - But We Need Your Commitment Now About Attending

2. New Times Cover Story Confirms - The P66 Project Is NOT About Protecting Jobs
3. Cities South Of SLO Now Realize The Dangers Of The P66 Plan

2
3

4. Berkeley Officials State Their Opposition To P66s Crude-By-Rail Project

5. Feds Considering Making The Monarch Butterfly An Endangered Species ...

But P66s Plan Endangers Them

6. What Would A Crude Oil Rail Terminal Look Like?

7. Article In New Times Reaffirms Air Quality Problems On The Nipomo Mesa

8. Gotcha! Oil Industry PR Pro Writes Covert Letter In Support Of P66

9. Its Non-Stop -- More Derailments, Crashes, Explosions

6-7

B. Why You Should Care About What Phillips 66 Intends For SLO County

C. Recent Videos & News Articles; Additional Education

D. How To Register Complaints Against Phillips 66
E. Steering Committee Members; Logistics Of This Newsletter

9 - 10
11
11

2
A. WHATS NEW THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Planning Commissions Public Hearing Delayed - But We Need Your Commitment Now
About Attending: The next County event we must all attend is the Planning Commissions
Public Hearing. Originally the date was Jan. 29th, then Feb. 5th. That date is now off the
table; were waiting to learn the new date, and will of course let you know, along with details.
At the meeting, each of us can briefly offer our views before the Commissioners, who will vote
on whether the P66 Rail Terminal should be built. Even if you dont wish to speak, we urge
you to attend to show support for opposition to the project.

CONTACT LINDA REYNOLDS NOW ABOUT ATTENDING:

Send an email to our chairperson ...
lreynolds151@gmail.com
2. New Times Cover Story Confirms - The P66 Project Is NOT About Protecting Jobs: On
Dec. 31st New Times published an in-depth review of the P66 project (click on the link below).
Of special note -- from the start, P66 has implied that if the Rail Terminal project isnt
approved, the refinerys future and employees jobs are at stake. Yet, the article states -When asked if Phillips had considered shutting the refinery if the rail spur wasnt approved, (Phillips
corporate spokesman) said such discussions hadnt occurred.
So shutting the plant and firing the staff isnt
on their radar screen. Obviously, the jobs
issue is a public relations strategy -- trying to
play on the emotions of SLO Countys
citizens and officials, and mislead them. P66
is using jobs as an excuse to bring in crude oil
trains loaded with low cost tar sands from
Canada ... thus pumping up their profits. We
mustnt be fooled. Its not about jobs.
http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/11850/a-crude-proposal-thepros-and-cons-of-a-controversial-phillips-66-oilbyrail-project/

3
3. Cities South Of SLO Now Realize The Dangers Of The P66 Plan: Under the Phillips Rail
Terminal plan, trains hauling crude oil tankers could arrive in SLO County from northern or
southern California. Most opposition to date has been from Bay Area towns ... but southern
cities are now logging in.

The Moorpark City Council passed a resolution to send a formal letter to SLO County
opposing the terminal. City Council member David Pollock said We should show leadership as
a city and formally object to this, and hopefully other cities along the track will take notice.
http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2014-12-26/Front_Page/Council_wants_to_stop_train_in_its_tracks.html

4. Berkeley Officials State Their Opposition To P66s Crude-By-Rail Project: If Phillips Rail
Terminal project is approved by SLO County, theres a tremendous ripple effect as its crude oil
tankers begin moving through scores of California towns. In Berkeley, the citys Rent
Stabilization Board supported (by a vote of 8 - 0) a resolution opposing the P66 plan ... because
the derailments could damage affordable rental housing as well as schools and businesses.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/News/ci_27148318/Berkeley-Rent-Stabilization-Board-opposes-crudeoil-transports-by-rail-through-city

5. Federal Government Considering Making The Monarch Butterfly An Endangered Species But P66s Plan Endangers Them: An icon of SLO County and the Trilogy community (directly
across from the proposed Rail Terminal) is its Monarch Butterfly Habitat, which was created
and protected by SLO County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just announced that its
considering placing the monarch under the federal protection of the Endangered Species Act.
However, building a Rail Terminal virtually in the
Habitats backyard will expose butterflies to pollution
from the refining of tar sands, particulates from diesel
locomotives, pollution from blowing petroleum coke
dust, as well as noise pollution. And, its known that
Monarchs often dont return to polluted areas.
Therefore, the P66 project is very likely to damage the
nearby Habitat ... by harming its environment or the
butterflies themselves. And of course, it could destroy a destination for tourists as well as
SLO Countys children and adults.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3644096-feds-will-consider-placing-monarch-butterfly-endangered-list

4
6. What Would A Crude Oil Rail Terminal Look Like?: What image does your mind conjure up
when P66 says all they want to bring to SLO County is a benign rail spur?
Well, thats Big Oil-speak for a Rail Terminal. Their EIR specifies miles of tracks, 520 trains
coming and going, an offloading/pumping facility (bottom photo), 30-foot high light towers,
new above-ground oil pipelines, diesel tanker trucks to refuel locomotives, plus other support
vehicles.
Heres what their spur/terminal will likely look like! It approximates what P66 intends for
us. Its pollution/dangers of the first order -- air, odor, visual and noise pollution, not to
mention the potential for derailments, spills, fires, etc.
And it will be a disaster for not only SLO County, but up and down the entire California coast.

5
7. Article In New Times Reaffirms Air Quality Problems On The Nipomo Mesa: New Times
just reported how government agencies are a long way from figuring out how to reduce the
dust pollution coming off the Oceano Dunes ... a problem that already violates state and
federal standards.
Despite this ongoing problem, P66 plans to introduce 520
trains arriving and departing the Mesa each year, with
locomotives spewing harmful diesel particulates for us to
breathe.
Whats P66s response to this additional pollution on top of an
already unacceptable and illegal situation? Theyll use their
banked emission credits to offset the new pollutants. In
effect, theyll do nothing but increase the respiratory dangers.
Thanks good neighbor!
http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/11776/dust-bust-even-as-stakeholders-make-small-advances-airpollution-is-still-a-problem-on-the-nipomo-mesa/

8. Gotcha! Oil Industry PR Pro Writes Covert Letter In Support Of P66: Its understandable
that supporters of the P66 project wish to make the best case they can. Of course it should all
be done in an aboveboard manner. However, a recent letter-to-the-editor in the SLO Tribune
tells us thats not whats happening.
A signed letter appeared supporting P66. It was supposedly written by a concerned citizen. It
blasted opponents of the project as special interest groups who have their own political agenda.
What the writer failed to disclose, is that shes an experienced public relations professional
with direct ties to the oil industry here on the Central Coast ... someone who owns and
operates a boutique political consulting firm ... in effect, a paid lobbyist for Big Oil.
But thats not all. Her spin on the project is hugely misleading. Labeling citizens who oppose
bringing crude oil trains through California towns as special interest groups with a political
agenda, is laughable. Theyre simply attempting to protect themselves and their families. The
true special interest group is clearly Phillips 66, with an agenda of increased profits.
She also states - The only special interest I pay attention to is
that of the health and prosperity of SLO County by supporting
responsible businesses such as Phillips. We therefore assume
shes never read the EIR, which states repeatedly that the
Rail Terminal would bring significant and unavoidable
health and safety impacts to citizens throughout the County.
For a closer look at her letter and a review article on dangers
of the P66 project, click on this link to the Sierra Clubs latest
newsletter (see pages 1 and 9).
http://santalucia.sierraclub.org/lucian/2015/01Jan.pdf

6
9. Its Non-Stop -- More Derailments, Crashes, Explosions
a. Union Pacific Cars Derail; Antelope CA; Jan. 2015: Three Union Pacific freight cars
derailed near Sacramento prompting an area evacuation. One was transporting Toluene,
which is a crude oil-based chemical used for benzene
and aviation fuel.
Luckily the overturned tanker didnt spill the
hazardous liquid, which according to the NIH can
cause death when inhaled.
http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news-sacramento/officialsinvestigate-train-derailment-in-antelope/30547276
http://celebrityexaminer.com/2015/01/06/train-derails-antelope/

b. Freight Train With Coal Ash Derails - Banff National Park; Dec. 2014: Seven cars on a
train crossing a bridge west of Calgary derailed and fell into a creek, contaminating it with
coal ash and grain. The contaminants will cause serious problems for local wildlife.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/transportation-safety-board-investigates-train-derailment-near-banff

7
c. Coal Train Derails; Paris, Kentucky; Dec. 2014: A hillside beneath rail tracks gave way
dumping four cars of coal into a nearby waterway. Typical cars carry 100 tons of coal each.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2014/12/csx-investigates-kentucky-coal-train-derailment

d. Explosion At Crude Oil Refinery; Lima, Ohio; Jan. 2015: An explosion at the Husky
Refinerys state-of-the-art, pristine processing unit caused a fire that burned for 10 hours.
It blew out windows in 20 nearby homes and could be felt 10 miles away. The explosion
launched shrapnel and other ash throughout the area near the refinery. Residents
reported large pieces of metal in their yards.
The local director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said the explosion
was worse than any other hes dealt with in his 17 years as EMA director.
Like P66s Nipomo refinery, the Husky refinery receives crude via pipeline, but has taken
steps toward bringing it into the facility by rail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuLc8Sp2tRs
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=tWdu0b8W
http://www.limaohio.com/news/home_top-news/51014284/Explosion-fire-shake-Limas-Husky-Refinery

8
B. WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT WHAT PHILLIPS 66 INTENDS FOR SLO COUNTY
History: Hundreds of Nipomo Mesa residents attended a meeting at Trilogys Monarch
Club on January 8, 2014 to discuss the proposed Phillips 66 refinery Rail Terminal project.
Based on that meeting, citizens joined together as the Mesa Refinery Watch Group to oppose
what will surely have a significantly negative and potentially disastrous impact on the Mesa
and throughout SLO County.
Phillips Proposal: Phillips refinery currently receives crude oil only by pipeline ... not one
drop by rail. If their proposal is approved, Phillips, for the first time will be allowed to bring
in 20,800 rail tankers per year, fully loaded with crude oil. Each year, 260 trains that are each
1.5 miles long would traverse the county to the refinery, and then the same 260 trains would
depart (520 trains in total).
Along with the arrival of loaded tankers, would come, for the first time, the construction of a
railcar unloading facility, a pumping station, and a new pipeline to move the crude within
the refinery. This would be accompanied by trucks and other vehicles to service the facility.
The Negative Impacts Of Conducting Business In An Entirely New Way: This represents
an entirely new business model for Phillips - its a dramatic transformation in the way they
operate in SLO County. This is not a benign, unobtrusive rail spur. The issue is the new
intensity of their operations and what they intend to bring in on those rails -- a half-billion
gallons of crude oil (561,800,000) transiting through SLO County by rail each year, forever.
Not only will the 520 trains and new rail terminal be highly invasive to SLO County, and not
only will they bring significant pollution and the potential of major oil spills, but the types of
crude likely to be delivered are highly dangerous to both the health and safety of our
citizens.
This very likely includes the pollution-intensive tar sands (which has been called one of
the worlds dirtiest and most environmentally destructive sources of fuel). Previously, Phillips
attempted to gain approval for the highly explosive Bakken crude, but the outcry of SLO
citizens forced the company to reverse course and finally say no Bakken.
What SLO County Officials Must Do: Given the continued, extreme opportunity for
disastrous derailments, along with air, odor, noise, motion, visual and light pollution, as well
as potential oil spills anywhere in the County, we are seeking to have the SLO Planning
Commission and Supervisors reject Phillips proposal.
What We Suggest You Do: Our efforts to convince County officials to reject Phillips plan
requires a great deal of ongoing work. We have a Steering Committee that shoulders the
majority of that work ... but your time and efforts are critical as well. Please contact any
Steering Committee member listed on the last page. Theyll describe what we need done at
any given time, and point you in the right direction.
Truly, what Phillips proposes is a serious threat to our health, safety and way of life.
Responding to it is a community task and responsibility -- and we need your help if were to
protect our community.

9
C. RECENT VIDEOS & NEWS ARTICLES; ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
Selected Items Discussed In Previous Newsletters ...
The MRWG Files Its Responses Document With SLOs Planning Commissioners:
http://www.mesarefinerywatch.com/newsletters-docs.html

Videos Of MRWG Citizens Action Meeting (And Related Article):

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuar948gfA_04PWyOHTR1hA.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/11/12/3346403_phillips-66-oil-rail-spur-nipomo.html?rh=1

KSBY TV Reports On The Unacceptable Nipomo Mesa Air Quality:

http://www.ksby.com/news/nipomo-mesa-air-quality-still-a-problem/

Citizens & Officials Are Stepping Up Across The Nation:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/10/30/3461453_700-show-up-to-tell-ecology-tougher.html?rh=1

California Government Officials Are Stepping Up:

www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_27010868/san-jose-council-member-urges-rejection-central-california

MRWG Member Interviewed By Central Coast Public Radio:

http://kcbx.org/post/proposed-refinery-rail-line-rallies-neighbors-nipomo-mesa

P66s REIR (Recirculated Environmental Impact Report - 10/10/14):

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning/environmental/EnvironmentalNotices/Phillips_66_Company_Rail_Spur_Extension_Project.htm

Other Communities - Taking Notice Of Our Fight To Keep SLO County Safe:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article3337650.html

Whats 102 Times More Dangerous Than Normal Crude Oil? Tar Sands!:
http://beniciaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-02-AGO-Valero-CBR-Project-DEIR-Comment-Letter-OCR.pdf

KSBY TV Interviews Nipomo Mesa Residents About P66:

http://www.ksby.com/news/phillips-66-santa-maria-refinery-proposes-adding-crude-oil-trains-to-operation/

California Attorney General Challenges The Use Of Crude-By-Rail:

http://beniciaindependent.com/sacramento-bee-attorney-general-challenges-benicia-oil-train-analysis/

Residents Sue Kern County Supervisors Over Crude-By-Rail:

http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/top-stories/lawsuit-filed-to-block-giant-bakersfield-crude-by-rail-facility-141014?news=854523

How Far Would SLO County Have To Evacuate?: http://explosive-crude-by-rail.org

Governors Task Force On The Risks Of Crude-By-Rail In SLO County:
http://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/Oil-By-Rail.aspx

Feds Turn Thumbs Down On DOT-111 Tankers; But Phillips Recently Purchased Them!:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/business/government-proposes-faster-changes-in-rail-tank-cars.html?_r=0

Even More City Governments Are Declaring Were Not Going To Take It Any More!:

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/334074055/maine-city-council-votes-to-keep-tar-sands-out-of-its-port; http://earthfix.opb.org/communities/article/vancouver-city-council/

(continued)

10
C. RECENT VIDEOS & NEWS ARTICLES; ADDITIONAL EDUCATION, cont.
Phillips Refinery Flares Yet Again:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/07/16/3155643/flaring-at-phillips-66-oil-refinery.html

Pipeline Delivery Of Crude - Documented As Safer Than Crude-By-Rail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/07/us/report-finds-higher-risks-if-oil-line-is-not-built.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&_r=0

The Need For An Oil Projects Cumulative Impact Analysis:

http://santalucia.sierraclub.org/lucian/2014/0708JulAug.pdf

Contra Costa County Stands Up To Threat From Phillips 66:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/News/ci_25929974/Contra-Costa-County:-Supervisors-order-recirculation

The California Legislature -- Addressing Safety Of Crude-By-Rail:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1319

Phillips 66s Bakken Strategy Forced Off The Tracks:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/04/25/3037503/no-bakken-crude-planned-for-nipomo.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1

NTSB - The Perilous State Of Crude-By-Rail:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-22/communities-not-prepared-for-worst-case-rail-accidents-ntsb.html
http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/04/why-explosive-and-deadly-oil-train-accidents-will-keep-happening/361148/

Video - Listen To A Survivor Of The Lac-Mgantic Oil Train Disaster:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/03/06/explosion-survivor-warns-of-fracked-oil-trains-newer-safety-regulations-delayed/

Video - What Oil Trains Would Look & Sound Like In SLO County:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11DTf6CYzHM&index=47&list=PL7A2C41AC7F231BD4

Our Groups Opinion Article Carried On CalCoastNews:

http://calcoastnews.com/2014/03/phillips-66-rail-project-explosive-risks-far-outweigh-benefits/

Berkeley City Council Votes To Oppose Crude By RailPlan http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/03/26/berkeley-city-council-votes-to-oppose-crude-by-rail-plan/

Richmond Calls On Congress To Halt Crude Oil Transport Through Bay Area http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_25421666/richmond-calls-congress-halt-crude-oil-transport-through?source=pkg

Video - How Oil Trains Put Communities At Risk:

http://daily.sightline.org/2014/02/10/video-how-oil-trains-put-the-northwest-at-risk/

Phillips 66 And Air Pollution: http://www.ksby.com/news/phillips-66-fined-230k-for-sf-bay-air-violations/

Rail Cars And Tracks Continue To Be Proven As Unsafe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/business/rail-inspections-ramp-up-in-albany-and-buffalo.html

11
D. HOW TO REGISTER COMPLAINTS AGAINST PHILLIPS 66
If you have a complaint to lodge about Phillips 66 incidents regarding odor, flaring, noise,
etc., heres how to register your complaints ...
a. Registering Complaints Directly With Phillips 66: Telephone the Santa Maria facility at
(805) 343-1776. You may get a recording asking you to leave your comment. Regardless,
ask them to get back to you with a Log-In #, so youll have confirmation that your
complaint was received.
b. Registering Complaints With SLO County (3 Different Ways):
Call SLO Countys Air Pollution Control Division (ACPD): 805-781-5912 (leave a
message after hours).
Send An Email To The ACPD: complaint@slocleanair.org.
Send A Compliant Form To SLO County Environmental Health Services:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Page12285.aspx.

E. STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS; LOGISTICS OF THIS NEWSLETTER

1. Steering Committee: Contact one or more of our members with your comments or to learn
about upcoming committee meetings.
Linda Reynolds (Chairperson):lreynolds151@gmail.com
Martin Akel:akelassoc@earthlink.net
John Anderson: johnanderson33@hotmail.com
Kevin Beauchamp:kevin.beauchamp@kw.co
Lee Edmonson: edmondson60@gmail.com
Gary McKible: gary@mckible.com
Mike Nelson: miken0105@gmail.com
Tom Ryan: whitneyhiker888@yahoo.com
Sam Saltoun: ssaltoun@verizon.net
Laurance Shinderman:lshinderman@sbcglobal.net

2. List Coordinator/Newsletter Distributor: If you would like to add names for receipt of this
newsletter, or if you would like to stop receiving it, kindly contact Steve Dubow -sfdubow@attglobal.net.

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:51 PM
To: 'ophirbruck@gmail.com'
Subject:
Revised resolution
Attachments: Fossil Fuel Divestment_Resolution_05.27.2014_1394666_Final-1 (strikes
through).docx
Ophir, thank you again so much for coming to the meeting on Tuesday and organizing others to come!
To address minor concerns brought forth by Councilmember Kernigham at the Finance and
Management Committee on June 10 minor clarifying adjustments were made to the resolution. Per City
Attorney these changes do not warrant changes in scheduling and this resolution can remain on the
consent calendar for June 17th Oakland City Council meeting. The revised language in track changes is
attached.
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Warmly,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:31 PM
To: Farmer, Casey
Subject:
Rules request draft for the rail transport resolution
Attachments: Oil by Rail_Rules Request_Draft.doc; Generic
Coal_Oil_Petcoke_Resolution_v4.docx
Hello Casey,
Attached is a draft Rules request. Looking forward to talking tomorrow to iron out all the logistics. Thank
you!
Have a nice night,
Olga
P.S. Also attached is the doc version of the resolution from Jess.
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

From: Bolotina, Olga

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:09 PM
To: DL - Agenda Team
Cc: Zima, Hannah; Farmer, Casey; Chan, Ada
Subject:
Rules request for tomorrow 5.8.2014
Attachments: Opposing Transportation of Hazardous Fuels_Rules Request_5 7 14.doc
Thank you so much!
Happy Wednesday,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

Resource S ummary a nd G uidance

Version 1.0
February 2015

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3
General Background .................................................................................................................................... 3
Resource Summary Background ................................................................................................................ 4
Planning Horizon .......................................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1 - Policy Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 - Legal and Regulatory Requirements ......................................................................................... 8
Resource Adequacy ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Renewable Portfolio Standard .................................................................................................................. 10
Power Source Disclosure ........................................................................................................................... 13
Greenhouse Gas Reporting ....................................................................................................................... 14
Storage ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
CHAPTER 3 Load Forecasting ...................................................................................................................... 17
Forecasting Future Energy Profiles ........................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 4 - Inventory of Resources Already Procured .............................................................................. 20
Local Renewables - Wholesale .................................................................................................................. 20
Local Renewables Retail ......................................................................................................................... 22
Out-of-County Renewables Wholesale ................................................................................................. 22
Other Renewable Energy .......................................................................................................................... 23
Carbon Free Electric Energy ...................................................................................................................... 24
Conventional Energy .................................................................................................................................. 24
Summary of Resources under Contract ................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 5 - Potential future Resources ...................................................................................................... 28
Near-Term Programmatic Resource Planning ......................................................................................... 29
Medium and Long-Term Programmatic Resource Planning .................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 6 - Optimal Resource planning ..................................................................................................... 30
Renewable Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 31
1

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Fossil and Carbon Free Energy and Scheduling ....................................................................................... 31
Programmatic Resources .......................................................................................................................... 32
Leveraging Other Resources ..................................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 7 - Evaluation Metrics .................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX 1 Abbreviations and Definitions ............................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX 2 Resource Data Tables ............................................................................................................ 36

List of Tables
Table 1. SCP Customer Participation......4
Table 2. SCP Annual Projected Sales and Supply under Contract (MWh).5
Table 3. SCP Principles...7
Table 4. SCP Regulatory Requirements.....8
Table 5. RPS Requirements, as a Percent of an LSE's Annual Retail Sales..10
Table 6. Major Wholesale Energy Supply Contracts, Through 12/31/14...25

List of Figures
Figure 1. RPS Portfolio Content Category Requirements.13
Figure 2. CEC Power Content Label Template.15
Figure 3. Representative 2015 Summer Weekday, Supply and Load.....18
Figure 4. Representative 2015 Winter Weekday, Supply and Load..18
Figure 5. Five-year Forecast SCP Load with Supply under Contract..24

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

INTRODUCTION
The intent of this document is to summarize current resources serving Sonoma Clean Power (SCP)
and describe the process for buying power and choosing customer programs. This summary was
developed through a public process with special contributions of Sonoma Clean Powers Resource
Plan Team, an ad-hoc of the Business Operations Committee. Throughout 2015, a forward-looking
Resource Plan will be developed with more detail on forecast loads, forecast sources and
descriptions of current and planned customer programs.
The first complete Resource Plan is anticipated in the first quarter of 2016, and it will replace this
preliminary document at that time by addressing all of the summary and guidance content and
adding the forward-looking plan. The Resource Plan will be a living document, updated annually, and
will reflect a 5-year planning horizon as currently envisioned. The process of contributing to, and
commenting on, the Resource Plan will build on the public transparency begun with this Resource
Summary and Guidance report.

General Background
SCP serves electric customers in the municipalities of Cotati, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma,
Windsor and unincorporated Sonoma County and has planned future service to Cloverdale,
Petaluma and Rohnert Park in mid-2015. SCP both partners with, and competes against, the
incumbent investor owned utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). The partnership arises
from SCPs use of PG&Es infrastructure to deliver and meter SCP electricity and the competition
arises from the ability of customers in SCPs territory to choose electric generation service from
either PG&E or SCP.
On May 1, 2014, SCP began service to the majority of SCPs eligible commercial customers and
approximately 6,000 residential customers. In this report, the first group of customers who took
service at program launch are referred to as Phase 1. In December 2014, service to all remaining
customers in the communities presently participating in SCP (Phase 2) began, and is currently the
default energy supplier for approximately 161,000 Sonoma County residential and commercial
customers. Customers in Cloverdale, Petaluma and Rohnert Park will begin receiving service from
SCP in mid-2015, and will be referred to as Phase 3 in this report. The City of Healdsburg operates
a municipal electrical utility and is ineligible for SCP service.
As of January 1, 2015, approximately 87% of eligible Phase 1 customers are receiving SCP electric
energy, with the other 13% opting to stay with PG&E. Among Phase 2 customers, approximately
91% are receiving service, though SCP expects this number to gradually decrease over the first few
3

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

months of 2015. (Summarized in Table 1.) Therefore, SCP forecasts the percentage of all customers
(including those in existing Phases 1 and 2 and the upcoming Phase 3) remaining with SCP to
stabilize around 85%. By contrast, before program launch, SCP projected a retention rate of
approximately 80%. SCP assumes that the high customer retention rate is attributable to SCPs
cleaner energy supply portfolio and rates that are lower than PG&Es.
Table 1. SCP Customer Participation

PHASE

SERVICE START DATE

PERCENT PARTICIPATION

May 2014

87%

December 2014

91%

Summer 2015

N/A

Resource Summary Background

This SCP Resource Summary and Guidance report (Summary) provides guidance for serving the
electric energy supply and program activity for SCP customers while meeting SCPs policy objectives.
The Summary presently covers just current contracts, but will lead to the drafting of SCPs five-year
Resource Plan.
To make this Summary as accessible as possible, definitions of terms and abbreviations are included
in Appendix 1. The primary elements of the Summary are:
Chapter 1 - Policy Goals and Objectives;
Chapter 2 - Legal and Regulatory Requirements;
Chapter 3 Load Forecasting;
Chapter 4 - Inventory of Procured Resources;
Chapter 5 - Potential Future Resources;
Chapter 6 - Optimal Resource Planning; and
Chapter 7 - Evaluation metrics.
This Summary is intended to provide strategic guidance, support transparency and encourage
community engagement in SCPs development and activities, while remaining flexible enough to
adapt and evolve over time. This Summary and the future Resource Plan are the central and most
4

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

visible components of an ongoing public planning process to discuss and communicate SCPs
procurement and program activities to our community. To serve this purpose, the future Resource
Plan will be kept current through regular updates at least once per year.

Planning Horizon
Planning and procurement in the energy industry generally involve three time scales: short-term,
which involves activities up to a year in the future; medium-term, which involves activities up to five
years; and long-term, which involves activities five-years and longer. SCP will use medium-term
planning for its first few years while building toward a long-term plan.
The five-year term is on a number of criteria that distinguish SCP's first five years of existence from
the years that follow. After the first five years, SCP can apply for an agency credit rating. With a
strong credit rating, credit and collateral costs should be reduced. In five years, the possibility of
being debt free also exists. Finally, through 2016, SCP is, as described in Chapter 4 and with the
exception of incremental true-up procurement, significantly procured for existing customers, leaving
2017 and 2018 with considerable open procurement positions (projected future electric demand
that has not yet been met with electric power purchases). Procurement for these open positions,
particularly with respect to renewable energy and other programmatic resources, will need to begin
soon, making a five-year planning horizon quite suitable. Table 2. shows, at a very high level, a
forecast of energy sales to customers in all communities participating in SCP (including those
communities of Cloverdale, Petaluma and Rohnert Park joining in mid-2015). Also shown are total
energy supplies under contract and the corresponding percent closed position. More detail on
Supply under Contract is provided in Chapter 4. At a minimum, annual adjustments to load
forecasts and the associated net open position will be needed during the five-year planning horizon.

Table 2. SCP Annual Projected Sales and Supply under Contract (MWh)
Year
Forecast Retail Sales
Supply Under Contract
Supply as a Percent of Sales

2014
2015
581,000 1,938,000
539,000 1,831,000
92.7%
94.5%

2016
2,209,000
1,614,000
73.1%

2017
2,215,000
548,000
24.8%

2018
2,221,000
640,000
28.8%

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CHAPTER 1 - POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

SCP is guided and governed by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that establishes SCP's basic policy
framework. The JPA goals are stated as:

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the use of power in Sonoma County
and neighboring regions;

Providing electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a competitive cost;

Carrying out programs to reduce energy consumption;

Stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy;

Promoting long-term electric rate stability and energy security and reliability for residents
through local control of electric generation resources.1

The JPA also states the intent "to promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable
energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to solar, wind, and biomass
energy production," noting that the "purchase of [non-local] renewable power and use of
[unbundled] renewable energy credits (RECs) is intended only as a transitional method to decrease
regional GHG emissions; local renewable projects are the preferred method." As described in
Chapter 2, SCP has already implemented overarching policies to address the use of "unbundled
RECs", i.e. Category 3 RECs, through limiting Category 3 REC use to only that allowed under the
Californias Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements. Category 3 RECs are described in
more detail in Chapter 2.
Consolidated goals derived from the JPA are:

Reduce GHG emissions;

Support competitive pricing;

Promote local economic benefits;

None of these laudable goals exist in a vacuum and in many ways these goals and objectives are
dynamically balanced against each other. For example, local small-scale renewable energy that will
result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increase local resources is likely to cost more than
larger remote renewable energy and, at least currently, is more expensive than large remote fossil-

1

Second Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement relating to and creating the Sonoma Clean Power Authority, by
and among the County of Sonoma and the Sonoma County Water Agency, approved and effective July 25, 2013.

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

fueled energy.
Particularly in the early stages of SCP's development, building an operating reserve fund and
supporting financial strength is critical. Electric energy procurement and program implementation,
even on relatively small scales, are generally costly, long term activities. SCP was launched with
100% debt financing and, even though SCP's financial projections indicate robust future financial
health, it has only repaid a small portion of the debt principal. Furthermore, the timing and other
requirements to establish a credit rating and reach an asset positive balance sheet are considerable
and likely out of reach over the next few years or more. Thus, a set of Principles (Table 3) will guide
the selection and design of each energy procurement and program activity. These include the three
consolidated goals plus an added principle reflecting credit profile impacts.

Table 3. SCP Principles
Principle #1
Principle #2

Reduce GHG emissions.

Support competitive retail rates.

Principle #3
Principle #4

Promote local economic benefits.

Have minimal negative or better impact on SCP's
credit profile.

Until SCP achieves a stable state with sufficient financial reserves, a strong credit rating, and easy
access to credit, Principle #4 should remain independent of the more general cost factors that
impact rate competitiveness. This is because in the near term, credit profile impacts of particular
activities may preclude alternative or subsequent actions. However, once SCP has passed the launch
phase and has a stronger financial position, it will become possible to evaluate both the
procurement cost and the credit profile impacts of alternative options by the same metric - total
project cost.

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CHAPTER 2 - LEGAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Virtually all of the provision of electric energy to end-use customers in the United States is regulated
to some degree. SCP provides electric energy to customers under the authority of California state
law, which enables the legal structure generally referred to as Community Choice Aggregation (CCA).
CCAs, such as SCP, enable local government jurisdictions, such as counties and cities, to aggregate
the electric load of their citizens and businesses, utilizing the incumbent investor owned utilitys
infrastructure to deliver and meter the electricity. Under the CCA enabling law, SCP is required to
meet many of the same legal and regulatory requirements imposed on PG&E, and a few that are
distinctly applied only to CCAs. This legal and regulatory regime is intended to provide a level
playing field between the CCA and incumbent investor owned utility, thereby promoting fair
competition and customer choice.
Compliance to CCA law and regulations is essential because this provides SCP with the authority to
serve customers. The core legal and regulatory elements underlying SCP electric procurement are
summarized in Table 44.
Table 4. SCP Regulatory Requirements
Reporting Category

Requirement

Regulating
Entity2

Resource Adequacy

Demonstrate compliance with the CPUC mandate

to procure capacity products (known as Resource
Adequacy and measured in megawatts) to meet
115% of forecast peak electric load.

CPUC

Renewable Portfolio
Standard

Demonstrate that SCP has procured qualified

renewable energy (as defined by the CEC) to meet
specified percentages of total retail electric sales.

CPUC

Power Source
Disclosure

Disclose annual breakdown of energy procured to

meet retail sales by energy source category.

CEC

CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission; CEC: California Energy Commission.

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

GHG Emissions

Voluntary. All reporting of emissions is done by

individual generation sources, under the rules set
by the California Air Resources Board; SCP is not
required to report the emissions of our energy
suppliers but does coordinate with PG&E to report
portfolio-wide GHG emission rates for direct
comparison.

None.

Storage

Demonstrate compliance with a targeted storage

capacity equal to 1% of SCP customer load by
2020. Additionally, submit advice letters filings
beginning in 2016 on progress towards compliance

CPUC

Resource Adequacy
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires SCP, and all other load serving entities
(LSEs) that provide electric energy to retail customers, to demonstrate that they have procured in
advance sufficient electric energy capacity (the demonstrated ability to supply electric energy on
demand) such that the California power system in aggregate is positioned to reliably meet system
coincident peak load3. The assurance that electric loads in California have sufficient electric energy
to serve them is essential in maintaining a safe and reliable electric system. Failure to procure
sufficient electric capacity can result in black outs, equipment damage, and unsafe electrical
infrastructure.
On both an annual year-ahead and month-ahead basis, SCP must file reports demonstrating that it
has procured sufficient electric capacity from resources qualified by the California Independent
System Operator (CAISO) including a reserve of an additional 15% above total forecasted peak
electric load. This electric capacity is known as Resource Adequacy (RA) and is measured in
megawatts (MW). It is a distinctly different product from energy, which is measured in megawatt-
hours (MWh). While many power plants can both generate energy and provide RA, these products
can be bought and sold separately. Beginning in 2015, a new element has been added to the RA
requirements called Flexible Capacity designed to ensure that a designated portion of an LSEs

3

SCPs projected capacity needs are shown, along with other key metrics related to procurement and resource planning,
in Appendix 2.

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

contracted capacity is from resources that can quickly decrease and increase generation output. This
type of flexibility is needed to respond to increasing amounts of renewable energy, such as wind and
solar, which produce variable electric output due to natural fluctuations in weather conditions.
The CPUC evaluates SCPs RA report submissions to ensure accuracy and completeness. If SCP fails
to properly comply with the CPUCs RA requirements, SCP could not only be subject to fines and
other penalties, but could be exposing Californias electric system to undue safety and reliability
risks. For these reasons, RA compliance is an important factor in SCP procurement.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

California Senate Bill 2 (1X) (Simitian, 2011) mandated renewable energy procurement requirements
for LSEs within multi-year compliance periods in specific categories. These requirements (Table 5)
are referred to as the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The CPUC oversees SCPs compliance
with the RPS and has set the following minimum percent of qualifying renewable energy for all
California LSEs:

Table 5. RPS Requirements, as a Percent of SCPs Annual Retail Sales4
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020+

Percent
21.7%
23.3%
25.0%
27.0%
29.0%
31.0%
33.0%

The California Energy Commission (CEC) oversees what types of electric energy qualify as renewable.
Generally, bio-energy (biomass and biogas), geothermal, solar, wind and small hydroelectric are the
most prominent sources of renewable energy. Throughout California and the Western United
States, solar and wind are expected to dominate over time.
In addition to setting annual minimum RPS percentages and designating sources as RPS-eligible, the

4

More information on SCPs RPS procurement requirements and program targets are shown in Appendix 2, Table A2.4.

10

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

RPS rules further delineate qualified renewable energy into three categories and places minimum
and maximum allowable percentages on these categories.
Category 1 consists of renewable energy produced and sold in California, and is the most preferred
type.
Category 2 consists of renewable energy imported into California from another state and is
supported by non-renewable energy to make up for the variability of wind or similar resources.
Category 3 consists of "unbundled" RECs which are the renewable attributes of renewable energy
stripped off of the underlying electricity. In other words, the "green" part of the Category 3 REC is
acquired, but the underlying remaining electricity is sold as non-renewable energy to a separate
third party. This underlying energy is sometimes referred to as "Null Power" because it no longer
possesses the stripped off green and renewable attributes. Category 3 RECs can come from
anywhere in the Western United States.
For 2014 through 2016, the RPS rules require that 65% of qualified renewable energy purchased to
meet an LSEs obligation come from Category 1 energy, no more than 15% come from Category 3
RECs and the remainder -- between 20% and 35% --can come from either Category 1 or Category 2
energy (Figure 1). For 2017 forward, the rules mandate that 75% of an LSEs RPS obligation must
come from Category 1 energy and no more than 10% may come from Category 3 RECs. The
remainder -- between 15% and 25% -- can come from either Category 1 or Category 2 sources.

11

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Figure 1. RPS Portfolio Content Category Requirements5

The RPS Category requirements reflect an increasing California preference for Category 1 renewable
energy produced and sold in California, a diminishing appetite for Category 3 RECs, and an in-
between level of desirability for Category 2 renewable energy. The Category 1 preference promotes
in-state construction of renewable sources. The diminishing RPS allowance for Category 3 RECs in
RPS compliance filings discourages the use of these products over time. This is likely because there is
no coordination between states to ensure consistency in emissions reporting, and emissions
reductions are a significant motivation for RPS rules. Pricing reflects the RPS category preference
with Category 1 renewable energy currently about 10 times as expensive as Category 3 RECs.
SCP must comply with all RPS requirements. When SCP voluntarily exceeds RPS requirements in any
fashion, the manner in which SCP decides to proceed is essentially unregulated. Many voluntary
(above RPS minimum) programs exist that use Category 3 RECs, such as in the City of Palo Alto,

5

Retrieved 12/31/14 from http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/hot/33RPSProcurementRules.htm.

12

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Marin Clean Energy. PG&E, however, has been prohibited
by the CPUC from implementing a voluntary program using Category 3 RECs. Because SCP competes
directly with PG&E, SCP elects to forego the use of Category 3 RECs for voluntary RPS energy
procurement. This decision helps SCP to directly compare our service options with those of PG&E,
and was widely supported by the public in our service territory. If at some point in the future
emissions reporting for the null power backing up Category 3 RECs is coordinated and verifiable, SCP
may reconsider how it uses this product.

Power Source Disclosure

The CEC oversees the disclosure and reporting by LSEs of the renewable and non-renewable content
of the electric energy they deliver to their customers. Currently, the RPS energy includes bioenergy,
geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar and wind. The non-renewable energy includes coal, large
hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear and "other." A third category, known as "unspecified sources of
power," is electric energy that is not traceable to specific generation sources. This type of energy is
also referred to as "system power," and is treated as natural gas for GHG reporting purposes.
SCP is required to file an annual report to the CEC regarding the types of electric energy delivered to
SCP customers, and provide all SCP customers with an annual report of summarized energy content
data called the Power Content Label. The below graphic provides a sample illustration of the Power
Content Label.

13

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Figure 2. CEC Power Content Label Template6

Greenhouse Gas Reporting

California's landmark law passed in 2006, AB 32 - the California Global Warming Solutions Act,
requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which is approximately 15%
below a "business as usual" scenario. Under AB 32, along with other programs, the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) adopted Mandatory Reporting Regulations (MRR) for electric power plant
and other stationary source GHG emitters and a companion GHG Cap and Trade program. Both of
these regulations were adopted in 2013. California has demonstrated national and international
leadership by being among the early adopters of strict GHG stationary source reduction efforts.
A key element of these ARB GHG reporting parameters is the inability to use Category 3 RECs to
offset GHG emissions. This prohibition is in place because, as described in the RPS section,
Category 3 RECs contain only the renewable attributes, but not the underlying energy. If a
Category 3 REC is used to offset GHG emissions, those emissions must be claimed elsewhere. In
other words, the underlying Null Power needs to report those offset GHG emissions.
For Category 3 RECs produced and sold inside California, the GHG value would be verifiable because

6

Retrieved on 12/31/14 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1305/documents/Proposed_AB_162_PCL.xlsx.

14

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

the underlying null power must be sold as system power with reported emissions equal to natural
gas power. But there are essentially no producers of Category 3 RECs in California for the simple
reason that it is far more valuable to sell renewable energy as Category 1.
Since all or nearly all Category 3 RECs are produced outside California, the issue of how null power is
handled is problematic. Based on SCPs research, it appears to be common practice for null power in
other states to be sold as zero emission and non-renewable. This means that SCP has determined
that it should not claim to have lower emission energy when purchasing an out-of-state Category 3
REC because to do so would mean that the emissions from the local system power source are not
reported by any retail provider in any state.
SCP's wholesale sources of electric energy must individually report GHG emissions under MRR, but
SCP has no direct, individual MRR emission-reporting obligation and SCP is likewise not directly
covered by Cap and Trade. For this reason, SCP's reporting of GHG emissions is largely unregulated.
Nevertheless, SCP has decided to voluntarily forgo the use of Category 3 RECs for the purpose of
GHG benefits. This means that if any Category 3 RECs are used by SCP, they will be limited to the
amount allowed under the RPS (approximately 3%) and GHG impacts will be calculated on the basis
of the source of delivered energy alone (e.g., typically natural gas).

Storage
Large-scale energy storage facilities, such as grid-scale batteries, pumped-hydro, and other
technologies, will allow SCP to store energy produced at times when energy supply exceeds
demand, and later discharge this energy to meet demand and displace other supply resources
during peak periods. The CPUC has adopted a storage procurement target for SCP and other CCAs of
1% of SCPs peak customer load by 2020. Storage is currently expensive compared with other
resources that have similar operating characteristics, and as a technology category is still in the early
stages of large-scale commercialization. Nevertheless, storage is predicted to be a key element
accommodating high levels of intermittent and variable energy sources, such as wind and solar. By
storing excess renewable energy when renewable generators are producing more electricity than
customers are using and later providing electricity when renewable generators are not producing,
storage is likely an important element of SCPs future portfolio. Storage to back up solar power is the
most straightforward example of storage potential. Excess solar energy can be produced and stored
to use at night, when the sun is not available. Storage also holds the potential to provide Flexible
Capacity, thereby reducing or even eliminating the need to use fossil fueled power plants to support
variable renewable generation.
In addition to having a storage target mandate, SCP will consider storage technologies in regular
15

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

procurement activities, to the extent that exceeding the target or achieving the target early supports
SCPs operations and aligns with the procurement Principles.

16

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CHAPTER 3 LOAD FORECASTING

The delivery of electric energy depends on generating the correct amount of electricity, or supply, to
match customer electric consumption (also referred to as load or as demand). This process is
referred to as "load balancing." Because most customers are able to use as much or as little
electricity as they desire, some amount of imbalance always exists. Nevertheless, load balancing
within a margin of acceptable error is a critical function in maintaining a safe and reliable grid, as well
as minimizing financial exposure to costs related to imbalances.
The responsibility for physical load balancing (matching the real-time output of power plants with
the constantly changing demand levels, both system-wide and locally) is performed by the CAISO.
However, SCP, like all other California LSEs, settles all of our imbalances at spot wholesale power
prices and so has strong financial incentives to accurately match our supply portfolio with our
projected demand, on both a long-term aggregated basis, and an hourly (or intra-day) basis.
Energy imbalance can be a cost or a credit, depending on real-time power market conditions, but
because of the volatility of real-time markets, prudent power system operations (and the need to
support stable customer rates) involve activities to cost-effectively mitigate these risks. This is why
SCP seeks to have immediate and near-term forecast energy needs under contract, and mitigate
some long-term imbalance risk through long-term (10- and 20-year) contracts. Load forecasting is
therefore critical to support SCPs procurement activities. The financial exposure to real-time
markets, along with other considerations such as RA requirements drive the need to forecast future
loads with as much certainty as possible.
In turn, reliable load forecasting enables resource procurement that seeks to minimize imbalances
and provides predictable costs that in turn support stable and competitive pricing. SCP load
forecasting uncertainty is most affected by the following factors:
1. The number of customers taking service from SCP, including population changes in Sonoma
County and customers switching their electric service between SCP and PG&E;7
2. Under- or over-performance of SCP programming (such as NetGreen net metering, energy
efficiency or others that affect net demand);
3. Load changes from external factors such as economic business cycles; and,
4. Weather patterns, which can unexpectedly impact customer electric consumption. An
example would be a late season heat wave that causes greater cooling load than normal.

7

Current estimates of customer counts are available in Appendix 2, Table A2.2.

17

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

As SCP grows, customer participation in SCPs energy service options and programs will become
more stable and predictable. External economic factors will always be a source of uncertainty for
SCP as they are for all LSEs. Finally, weather patterns, can be mitigated to some degree with analysis,
but the cost of such a service should be weighed against the benefits.
SCP currently forecasts aggregate energy demand for all currently participating (Phases 1 and 2)
customers to be approximately 1,800,000 MWh in 2015, growing by approximately 0.2% annually.
With the addition of service to the Phase 3 communities of Cloverdale, Petaluma and Rohnert Park
expected to occur in mid-2015, SCPs current forecast of total retail sales is approximately 1,938,000
MWh in 2015 and 2,209,000 in 2016. (Table 2) It is important to note that sales that are not met by
supply under contract, as was the case in 2014, are settled in the spot wholesale power market; any
risk assumed by an open position is a financial risk, not an electric reliability risk. More detail on the
Supply under Contract is provided in the next chapter and in Appendix 28

Forecasting Future Energy Profiles

In addition to forecasting aggregate future energy needs, SCP also seeks to forecast energy demand
profiles of our customers, in order to ensure energy supply matches energy demand on every
relevant time scale (annually, seasonally, daily and hourly). This objective is important to ensure the
proper balance between energy supply scheduled to meet so-called baseload demand (the
minimum forecast load level needed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week), as well as peak demand (the
maximum instantaneous demand over any given time interval). The figures below show two
representative daily load shapes and SCPs closed (already procured) supply positions for,
respectively, a summer weekday and a winter weekday for SCPs total customer base (including
those communities that will begin taking service in mid-2015).

Detailed data on SCPs annual demand forecasts, as well as a high level breakdown of supply categories, are available in
Appendix 2, Table A2.1.

18

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Figure 3. Representative 2015 Summer Weekday, Supply and Load

Figure 4. Representative 2015 Winter Weekday, Supply and Load

SCP uses load forecasts at all time-scales as we seek to minimize overall procurement costs while
also mitigating risks of adverse costs from real-time imbalances. Based on present forecasts, SCP will
work over the next several months to negotiate additional supply (or demand-side load reductions if
available) to match supply and demand for the second half of 2015 and for 2016. Additional Phase 3
load are not yet reflected in these figures but will be taken into consideration moving forward.
19

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CHAPTER 4 - INVENTORY OF RESOURCES ALREADY PROCURED

After only a few months of operation, SCP has succeeded in executing a number of valuable
contracts for a balanced mix of resources that match our projected load profiles. A review of these
resources, including a discussion of how they perform against the Principles, follows.
Please note: SCP keeps price terms confidential on our energy transactions. Price confidentiality is
necessary for SCP to maintain a strong market position with respect to competitors and potential
counterparties, but is also a common requirement of SCP's suppliers. Accordingly, pricing will be
referred to in general, relative terms, but actual contract prices are not provided.
In order to facilitate the successful launch of SCP as a competitive power supplier for Sonoma
County, SCP entered into several separate contracts with two primary suppliers, Constellation
Energy Group (a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation) and Calpine Corporation (Calpine). The contract
with Calpine is described below, under Geysers Renewable Geothermal Energy. Additionally, in
2013 and 2014, a total of four contracts were signed with Constellation to provide the majority of
SCPs energy needs, while meeting our goals of at least 33% renewables and 70% total carbon-free
in our first year of operations. The contracts with Constellation, entitled Phase 1, Phase 1A (a true-up
procurement for Phase 1 customer load), Phase 2 (2014/2015) and Phase 2 (2016) were bundled
power purchase contracts intended to fill SCPs initial energy and capacity needs. Together with the
contracts described in detail in this chapter, SCP is significantly contracted through 2016, with
generally increasing open positions in later years, which will be filled gradually according to the
principles laid out in this report.

Local Renewables - Wholesale

Geysers Renewable Geothermal Energy
SCP is under contract with Calpine Corporation to receive Category 1, local, renewable energy from
The Geysers geothermal facilities in Sonoma and Lake Counties. The initial quantity, already under
delivery in 2014, is 10 MW running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week increasing to 50 MW in 2018 and
continuing at 50 MW through 2026. On average, this is enough annual energy to power over 68,000
homes with local, 100% renewable energy.
Geothermal is generally more expensive than other renewable energy such as wind or solar,
because the technology requires considerably more complicated equipment with higher operation
and maintenance costs. Consistent with these factors, the Calpine contract is one of SCP's most
20

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

expensive contracts to date. The resource is, however, in SCP's service territory, and, relative to
other SCP contracts, the Calpine contract has a minimal collateral requirement. Weighing these
attributes against the Principles, the Calpine contract:

Supports a reduction in GHG emissions, as geothermal is a relatively low-carbon-emitting

resource.

Supports competitive retail rates for the life of the contracts. Provides local economic
development by procuring energy from a local resource employing a local workforce.

Has a low collateral requirements, minimizing the impact to SCPs credit profile.

ProFIT (Feed-In-Tariff) Program

In August of 2014, SCP launched a Feed-In-Tariff program known at ProFIT. ProFIT allows local
renewable projects under 1 MW to sell energy to SCP under a standard 10- or 20-year contract at
pricing set to encourage in-county renewable development.9 Because local, small-scale (or
distributed) generation is nearly always more expensive to build than remote, utility scale
generation, premium pricing has been offered (from $95/MWh to $130/MWh depending on project
design). ProFIT contracts will be offered to eligible projects until $600,000 per year of pricing
premium is reached. This premium represents the amount by which these projects are more
expensive than the cheapest available Category 1 power in California.
Full evaluation of energy procurement under ProFIT will remain incomplete until projects
successfully deliver renewable energy to SCP. Nevertheless, utilizing reasonable assumptions, the
program can be evaluated under the Principles. ProFIT:

Supports GHG emissions reductions by supporting qualified local renewable resources.

As the ProFIT program deliberately contains premium pricing for local renewables, at a large
enough scale, it would put upward pressure on rates through its impact on bundled
procurement costs.

Provides local economic development by procuring energy from local resources employing a
local workforce.

Has no collateral requirements.

More information on ProFIT is available at www.sonomacleanpower.org/profit.

21

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Local Renewables Retail

NetGreen (Net Energy Metering) Program
The SCP NetGreen program allows customers to offset their electric energy requirements utilizing
small renewable technologies such as solar photovoltaic panels. The NetGreen program allows
customers to spin their meters both forward and backwards, essentially resulting in SCP electric
service acting as a form of storage for the NetGreen customer. For example, if a customer is not
home during the day, solar panels installed on a customers roof may generate electricity in excess
of what is needed to serve on-site energy demand. During these times, that electricity is delivered to
other neighboring SCP customers and the NetGreen customer receives a credit for the energy. At
different times, such as at night when the sun does not shine, the NetGreen customer will receive
electricity from SCP. The SCP power delivered is offset by the credit received during times of over
generation.
By making small-scale, decentralized systems more cost effective, NetGreen directly supports
customer installations designed to serve some or all of a customer's electric needs. The annual price
premium to support NetGreen is forecasted to be between approximately $200,000 and $300,000
per year, though with significantly greater NetGreen penetration, the impact could be greater. A
prudent assessment of net energy metering (NEM) resource potential and financial impacts will be
necessary if subscription levels exceed expectations.
Weighed against the Principles, NetGreen:

Supports GHG emissions reductions by supporting qualified renewable distributed resources.

Because NetGreen compensates customers for their excess energy at retail rates plus a small
bonus, at a large enough scale it would put upward pressure on rates through its impact on
bundled procurement costs.

May provide local benefits by encouraging economic activity among local solar installers.

Has no collateral requirements;

Out-of-County Renewables Wholesale

Mustang Renewable Solar Energy
In June 2014, SCP executed a contract with Recurrent Energy for 30 MW of Category 1 solar energy
to be built near Lemoore, California, for delivery by the end of 2016. Additionally, in October 2014,
22

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

SCP executed an additional contract with Recurrent for an additional 40 MW from the same project.
The 70 MW procurement is part of a larger 100 MW project, but SCP's first purchase in June 2014
was the first tranche and enabled the Mustang project to move forward. Because solar energy is
only produced while the sun is shining, less yearly energy is produced compared to a similarly sized
base load plant, such as the Calpine Geysers plant. The two solar contracts combined are
expected to provide enough annual energy for over 32,000 homes at competitive terms. The
Mustang pricing and collateral requirements are also favorable. Additional attributes of Mustang
include construction on impacted farmland, a labor agreement with the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, very minimal environmental impacts, and no third party opposition.
Weighing these attributes against the Principles, the Mustang contract:

Supports GHG emissions reductions by supporting qualified a new renewable solar resource.

The supply costs compare favorably against projected procurement costs for renewable
energy used in projections at program launch, and are very competitive in the marketplace
for comparable supply of Category 1 power.

Does not promote local economic benefits, beyond keeping rates low.

Has no collateral requirements; while the contracts called for posting of collateral, the
contract terms stipulated return of this collateral upon SCP reaching certain financial
milestones, which were achieved even before the collateral posting for Mustang 4 would
have been due.

Other Renewable Energy

Through contracts with Constellation, SCP has secured enough other RPS qualified energy to meet
SCPs outstanding RPS requirements for 2014 through 2016, and to reach or exceed SCP's voluntary
renewable requirement for SCP's 33% renewable CleanStart service. The vast majority of these
purchases are for Category 1 and Category 2, with only a small amount of Category 3 RECs (3% of
load) utilized as allowed under the RPS requirements. The procurement under these contracts is
competitively priced.
For the years 2017 and 2018, SCP has procured the vast majority of our RPS qualified energy to meet
both our mandated and voluntary renewable targets through our four long-term power purchase
contracts, Geysers 1 and 2 and Mustang 1 and 3.
Weighed against the Principles, the near-term Constellation contracts:

Supports GHG emissions reductions by supporting qualified renewable solar resource energy
23

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

supply.

The supply costs compare favorably against projected procurement costs for renewable
power products used in projections at program launch, and are very competitive in the
marketplace for comparable supply for each category of power.

Does not promote local economic benefits.

Reasonable collateral posting through use of a secured account and a designated minimum
balance somewhat constrains SCPs ability to engage in bundled procurement from
alternative suppliers.

Carbon Free Electric Energy

Also through contracts with Constellation, SCP has secured enough carbon free energy (mostly
comprised of large hydroelectric energy) to meet SCPs aggressive GHG emission reduction goals for
2014, 2015 and 2016 without taking any GHG credit for Category 3 RECs. The carbon free energy is
priced competitively and helps support GHG emission rates approximately 30% lower than PG&E.
This is a particularly notable accomplishment for SCP because PG&E, due to ownership of a large
nuclear power plant and considerable hydroelectric resources, has one of the lowest GHG emission
factors of any major utility in the country.
Weighed against the Principles, the carbon free energy contracts:

Supports GHG emissions reductions by specifying supply from hydroelectric energy sources.

The supply costs compare favorably against projected procurement costs for specified source
hydroelectric energy used in projections at program launch, and are very competitive in the
marketplace for comparable supply of hydropower.

Does not promote local economic benefits, beyond keeping rates low.

Reasonable collateral posting through use of a secured account and a designated minimum
balance somewhat constrains SCPs ability to engage in bundled procurement from
alternative suppliers.

Conventional Energy
After all of the previously described resources are taken into account, SCP's remaining customer
demand for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are met with conventional fossil sources under contract with
Constellation. This residual fossil procurement is largely from gas fired electric energy from utility
scale generators and is competitively priced, helping to meet SCPs energy and capacity obligations.
24

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Conventional unspecified source energy procurement does not directly support reduced GHG
emissions nor local in-state economic development. However, the substantially lower costs versus
renewable and in-county resources supports a very competitively priced bundled portfolio
procurement cost. Fossil energy procurement is a necessary bridge to serve SCPs customers in the
near term while positioning SCP for the future. At this stage further reduction of fossil energy
procurement is cost prohibitive (including those costs associated with credit and collateral), though
SCP continually monitors market conditions for opportunities to prudently shift away from
conventional energy sources.

Summary of Resources under Contract

SCPs currently contracted wholesale energy supplies from all sources through 2018, plotted against
our forecast aggregate energy sales to participating communities (including Cloverdale, Petaluma
and Rohnert Park which are projected to begin taking service in mid-2015) are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Five-year Forecast SCP Load with Supply under Contract

Table 6 summarizes the major wholesale energy supply contracts SCP has executed as of December
2014.

25

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Table 1. Major Wholesale Energy Supply Contracts, Through 12/31/14
Contract Name
Phase 1/1A

Description
Bundled Conventional, Carbon-Free, and
Renewable Energy and Resource Adequacy
Contract to Meet Phase 1 Load.
Bundled Conventional, Carbon-Free, and
Renewable Energy Contract to Meet Phase 2
Load for 2014 and 2015.
Bundled Conventional, Carbon-Free, and
Renewable Energy Contract to Meet Phase 2
Load in 2016.
10-Year Bundled Renewable Energy and
Resource Adequacy Contract from Local
Geothermal Resources, beginning with 10 MW in
2014 up to 18 MW in 2020.
10-Year Bundled Renewable Energy and
Resource Adequacy Contract from Local
Geothermal Resources, beginning in 2017.
Contract is structured to bring total Geysers 1
and 2 delivery to 30 MW in 2017 and 50 MW
from 2018 through 2026.

Term
5/1/2014 through
12/31/2016

Geysers 3

1-Year, 65,000 MWh Category 1 RPS-qualified

energy.

1/1/2017 through
12/31/2017

Mustang 1

20-Year, 30 MW Renewable Energy Contract

from New Solar Photovoltaic Project in California
beginning delivery in 2017.

1/1/2017 through
12/31/2036

Mustang 3

20-Year, 40 MW Renewable Energy Contract

from New Solar Photovoltaic Project in California
beginning delivery in 2017. Note: Mustang 2 is a
separate 30-MW portion of the total project
which was sold by the developer to another
party.
1-Year, 30 MW Renewable Energy Contract from
New Solar Photovoltaic Project in California
delivering in 2017.

1/1/2017 through
12/31/2036

Phase 2
(2014/2015)
Phase 2 (2016)
Geysers 1

Geysers 2

Mustang 4

26

12/1/2014 through
12/31/2015
1/1/2016 through
12/31/2016
5/1/2014 through
12/31/2023
1/1/2017 through
12/31/2026

1/1/2017 through
12/31/2017

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

27

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CHAPTER 5 - POTENTIAL FUTURE RESOURCES

With the recent addition of the communities of Cloverdale, Petaluma and Rohnert Park to the
service territory, SCP has a moderate open position to fill in 2015 and 2016. However, under a five-
year planning horizon, the majority of unmet resource needs will still be in 2017 and 2018. The
procurement achieved through the end of 2014 to meet short-term needs exclusively involved
power-related products (including energy and capacity) from existing supply-side resources. This
resulted from the driving need to successfully launch service and meet the immediate energy needs
of our customers at competitive rates. A critical factor limiting the scope of possible new resources
was the lead-time needed to identify and implement or construct resources of any kind at a large
scale. Given these constraints, the Principles of SCP (identified in Chapter 1) guided and will continue
to guide near-term procurement to prudently focus on existing supply-side resources. In the
medium and long-terms these same Principles will continue to guide procurement from a greater
range of types of resources, both demand- and supply-side.
In identifying potential resources to meet the energy needs of SCP customers, it is important to
appreciate that the objective of meeting energy needs may involve SCP supporting both demand-
and supply-side development, as long as these investments prudently balance Principles and the
objectives identified in SCPs JPA. Energy needs can be met by increasing supply or by reducing
demand. In fact, the storage mandate adopted by the CPUC offers a prime example of the ways in
which policy-makers and energy sector planners are considering non-traditional resources to meet
Californias energy needs. Resources that can potentially meet SCPs resource needs include:

Conventional and renewable large-scale generation sources;

Local renewable projects, such as those under 1 MW eligible under SCPs ProFIT feed-in-tariff
program;

Larger-scale (> 1 MW) local energy supply projects procured through SCPs wholesale
competitive solicitation processes (under consideration for future design and
implementation).

Demand-side energy efficiency and demand response programs;

Small-scale renewable projects, such as rooftop solar, supported by SCPs NetGreen net
metering program;

So far, SCP has worked to provide service for its customers while being opportunistic on future
purchases. As SCP service stabilizes, builds financial strength and evolves internal process and
capabilities, more time and resources will be available to explore and expand the scope of potential
28

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

resources to meet medium- and long-term needs. These will be reflected in both SCP operations and
in the future Resource Plan.

Near-Term Programmatic Resource Planning

At this stage, SCP is exploring the following types of programmatic resources at a high level, and will
continually engage with stakeholders, customers and the public as they are considered in greater
detail:

Community renewable projects (sometimes referred to as Community Solar).

Energy efficiency education, customer site analysis or audits, retrofits, product support, on-
bill repayment and other financing mechanisms.

Demand response (DR) including aggregated, automated and hybrid forms of conservation
upon request.

Electric vehicle infrastructure, charge control and related opportunities. Other fuel switching
(replacement of gas-powered appliances and devices with smart electric-powered devices).

For the near-term, the above potential Sonoma Clean Power energy programs are intended to
provide customer education about GHG emissions, energy and efficiency while reducing the need to
purchase electricity overall, whether by reducing energy demand, increasing supply, switching to
lower carbon fuel sources or balancing daily and seasonal loads. A secondary objective is to support
and/or drive customers toward existing programs offered by PG&E and County of Sonoma Energy &
Sustainability, such as Sonoma County Energy Independence Program (SCEIP) and Windsor Pay as
You Save (PAYS).

Medium and Long-Term Programmatic Resource Planning

While the potential of SCP to explore and implement any given set of possible energy resources is
limited, a key part of SCPs resource planning process will involve engaging with outside
organizations to solicit expertise and learn from experiences gained elsewhere in commercializing
emerging technologies and designing innovative energy programs. Considered broadly, novel
opportunities available to SCP and our customers could include:

Developing autonomous microgrids that can optimally draw from the existing grid and
operate as an electrical island where appropriate.

Engaging with governmental agencies and private organizations on developing standards to

support efficient energy use and interactivity with the power system.
29

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Innovative rate designs to provide revenue streams or savings to customers who make
investments of potential value to SCP and the power grid operator.

CHAPTER 6 - OPTIMAL RESOURCE PLANNING

Energy supply portfolio development is a complex process that involves continuous monitoring of
market conditions, consideration of well understood as well as more innovative energy sources,
alignment with developing policy objectives and a strong focus on risk management. The Principles
outlined earlier in this Summary will continue to guide resource planning as SCP identifies potential
opportunities to meet our customers energy needs. As highlighted in Chapter 5, most of these
resources in the short-term will continue to be those, such as local geothermal, in-state solar and
products available in the wholesale power market, that are proven and cost-effective.
As more types of resources (including energy efficiency programs) become available that can
support the Principles, whether due to greater lead-times in SCPs planning activities, through
identification of opportunities for collaboration with other organizations in the energy sector,
through technological change, or through the simple strengthening of SCPs financial position, the
Resource Plan will incorporate them. Over the next months and years, in concert with development
of the Resource Plan, SCP expects to dedicate substantial resources to developing future portfolio
scenarios that strike the proper balance between risk mitigation, energy source diversity, and larger
policy priorities. Among the factors that flow into portfolio design are:

Availability and pricing of renewable energy;

Market conditions for conventional fossil and carbon-free energy;

Coordination and scheduling needs of contracted energy resources;

Forecasting of load changes (including addition of new jurisdictions and differences between
anticipated and actual opt-outs);

Programmatic resources; and

Other resources available to SCP and its customers.

As with all procurement activities to-date, all future resource planning and procurement will
continue to be guided by the Principles identified in Chapter 1, which are distilled for procurement
purposes from the high-level SCP program goals of the JPA. These Principles are frequently in
tension, and the practice of weighing and balancing them in the process of power procurement falls
to SCP staff, the oversight and advisory committees, and the Board.
30

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Renewable Energy
Renewable energy procurement will be focused on high-value Category 1 projects that properly
balance the Principles (reducing GHG emissions, maintaining competitive pricing, providing local
benefits and having a minimal negative or better impact on SCPs credit profile). For the near-term,
this type of procurement will of necessity be focused primarily on large-scale resources to meet
SCPs compliance obligations and GHG targets, and secondarily on in-county renewable resources
that can be secured at competitive prices.

Fossil and Carbon Free Energy and Scheduling

With SCPs movement toward in-house procurement expertise, exploration of additional fossil and
carbon-free energy procurement options through centralized competitive solicitation may be
pursued. Where appropriate, SCP will also continue to engage creditworthy counterparties in
bilateral negotiations for these resources. Use of competitive solicitations may support SCPs ability
to broaden the number of potential suppliers for targeted products and resources with more
favorable operating characteristics. Balancing the objectives of reducing GHG emissions, supporting
local development and maintaining a cost structure that supports competitive retail rates will likely
require continued procurement of fossil-fuel energy. The guidance SCP takes for these activities are
illustrated in our Resource Plan metrics (Chapter 7).
Another pursuit in resource planning is research regarding scheduling SCP's loads and resources in-
house or through a dedicated third-party. Constellation is under contract, as part of SCPs early
bundled arrangement with them, to perform this function through 2016, but in-house or dedicated
vendor scheduling could enable significant costs savings through overhead reduction and better
control over load imbalances. Having greater visibility into and control over scheduling coordination
could allow SCP to better target procurement activities for resources with specialized operating
characteristics that better fit with our existing portfolio and our customers energy use profiles.

31

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Programmatic Resources
Portions of the expected future load will also be met by reducing the demand for energy through
programs designed to promote conservation behavior and efficient technology and controls. SCP is
currently reviewing other existing programs, identified in Chapter 5, to assess which are most
effective, and will form and operate demand-side programs or help advertise existing programs as
appropriate.
The reduction of the total use of energy is a critical approach that fits in SCPs Principles but, as
discussed above, has been limited in scale due to the immediate need to launch SCP and serve
customers. As explained in greater detail in Chapter 5, demand-side management will become
increasingly important and receive increasing attention. SCP expects to dedicate resources to
explore how demand-side management can play a larger role in meeting customer energy needs.

Leveraging Other Resources

In all instances, optimal resource procurement will include leveraging available third-party resources
and partnerships. Potential partners and resources include but are not limited to other agencies
such as the Regional Climate Protection Authority, Sonoma County Transportation Authority,
Sonoma Counter Water Agency, Sonoma County Energy Independence Program, SCP member
jurisdictions, the private sector, community groups, and grant and other funding opportunities.

32

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

CHAPTER 7 - EVALUATION METRICS

Evaluation metrics are useful tools to ensure SCP is on target to meet the policy objectives set forth
in the JPA and to responsibly and sustainably meet customer needs and expectations. These metrics
may be updated from time to time. At present, the draft key metrics are:

SCP's CleanStart renewable content from day one should be 33% renewable or better (this
favorably compares with PG&Es mandated target of 2020 to achieve the same 33%). SCP
should achieve this primarily with Category 1 and 2 renewable energy, and with limited use
of Category 3 RECs.

SCP's average GHG emission factor should be 20% lower than PG&E's average GHG emission
factor. This 20% should be a minimum differential, and SCP should do better when possible.

SCP customers average electric energy bills should remain at or below 102% of the bills of
similarly situated customers in SCPs territory who opt to remain with PG&E.

Metrics will be assessed and updated on a regular basis, as part of the on-going development of the
Resource Plan.

33

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

APPENDIX 1 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Item

Description

Notes/See Also

AB 32

Assembly Bill 32

ARB

California Air Resources Board

www.arb.ca.gov

Business Operations Committee

CAISO

California Independent System Operator

www.caiso.com

Calpine
Geysers

Calpine Geysers Geothermal Facilities

Carbon-Free

An attribute of some energy that SCP procures,

contractually specified as coming from a carbon-free or
carbon-neutral sources (such as hydroelectric plants)

Category 3
REC

An unbundled renewable energy credit (REC)

See page 10.

CCA

Community Choice Aggregation

See
www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/ene
rgy/Retail+Electric+Markets
+and+Finance/070430_ccag
gregation.htm

CEC

California Energy Commission

www.energy.ca.gov

CleanStart

Sonoma Clean Powers default service for customers in its

territory.

Constellation

A subsidiary of the Exelon Corporation that SCP contracted

with to supply bundled renewable, carbon-free and

BOC

conventional energy and resource adequacy for the first

years of program operation.
CPUC

California Public Utilities Commission

www.cpuc.ca.gov

DG

Distributed Generation

DR

Demand Response

Energy Efficiency

EverGreen

Sonoma Clean Powers premium electric service option for

100% local and renewable power.

FIT

Feed-In-Tariff

SCPs Feed-in-Tariff
program is called ProFIT.

Flexible
Capacity

A type of Resource Adequacy (RA) with specifications that

the source has certain operational ramping capabilities.
Introduced into LSEs compliance obligations in 2015.

GHG

Greenhouse Gases

Joint Powers Agreement

See

EE

JPA

34

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

https://sonomacleanpower.
org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/S
CPA-Second-Amended-
Joint-Powers-Agreement-
Approved-7-25-13.pdf
LSE

Load Serving Entity

MRR

Mandatory Reporting Requirement

See page 14.

MW

Megawatt

MWh

Megawatt-hour

NEM

Net Energy Metering also known as Net Metering

SCPs NEM program is

called NetGreen.

Null Power

The energy produced from a qualified renewable source

that has had the renewable attribute unbundled and sold

See page 10.

as a separate REC (considered CAT3, or the lowest quality

REC, in California)
PG&E

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

www.pge.com

Power
Content
Label

A reported breakdown of energy sources that make up the

power content of an LSE, required annually by the CEC.

See page 13.

RA

Resource Adequacy

See page 9.

REC

Renewable Energy Credit or Certificate

See page 10.

RPS

Renewable Portfolio Standard

See page 10.

SCP

Sonoma Clean Power

Unspecified

Energy that is not attributable to a particular generating

Source

source. For GHG reporting purposes, the CA ARB

determines a proxy emissions rate for unspecified sources.

35

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

APPENDIX 2 RESOURCE DATA TABLES

Table A2.1. Annual Demand and Supply by Category, Estimated
Year
SCP Demand (GWh)
Retail Demand
Distributed Generation
Energy Efficiency
Losses and UFE
Total Demand

SCP Supply (GWh)
Renewable Resources
Generation
Power Purchase Contracts
Total Renewable Resources

2014

Carbon-Neutral Resources
Power Purchase Contracts
Total Renewable Resources
Conventional Resources
Power Purchase Contracts
Total Conventional Resources

Total Supply

2015

2016

2017

2018

-590
9
0
-35
-617



0
192
192

-1,971
33
0
-118
-2,056



0
665
665

-2,249
40
31
-135
-2,313



0
804
804

-2,257
42
33
-135
-2,318



26
825
851

-2,265
44
34
-136
-2,322



26
873
899

259
259

166
166

617

888
888

503
503

2,056

968
968

541
541

2,313

870
870

597
597

2,318

840
840

583
583

2,322

Table A2.2. SCP Retail Service Accounts (End of Year), Estimated
Year

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

140,282

167,264

167,598

167,933

168,268

14,486

17,879

17,914

17,949

17,984

1,427

1,858

1,861

1,864

1,867

434

588

589

590

591

10

11

11

11

11

Street Lighting & Traffic

1,646

1,742

1,745

1,748

1,751

Agricultural

2,627

2,635

2,640

2,645

2,650

160,912

191,977

192,358

192,740

193,122

Residential
Small Commercial
Medium Commercial
Large Commercial
Industrial

Total

36

SCP Resource Summary and Guidance Feb 2015

Table A2.3. SCP Capacity Requirements (MW)
Year
Retail Demand
DG/EE
Losses and UFE
Total Net Peak Demand

Coincident Peak Adjustment
Reserve Requirement
Capacity Reserve Requirement
RMR/CAM Allocation
Resource Adequacy Requirement

2014
235
0
7
242

-22
15%
33
-14
239

2015
387
-6
12
393

-27
15%
55
-54
366

2016
388
-6
12
393

-27
15%
55
-54
367

2017
389
-7
12
394

-27
15%
55
-54
367

2018
389
-7
12
394

-27
15%
55
-54
368

Table 2. SCP RPS Requirements and Program Targets
Year

2015

2016

2017

2018

581,000

1,938,000

2,209,000

2,215,000

2,221,000

21.7%

23.3%

25%

27%

29%

33%

33%

35%

37%

39%

RPS Requirement (MWh)

126,077

451,554

552,250

598,050

644,090

RPS Program Minimum Target (MWh)

191,730

639,540

773,150

819,550

866,190

65,653

187,986

220,900

221,500

222,100

Retail Sales (MWh)

RPS Requirement (% of Retail Sales)
RPS Program Target (% of Retail Sales)

Surplus in Excess of RPS (MWh)

2014

37

SFERS Info Session Agenda

June 18th, 2pm to 4pm

Introduction
2:00pm 2:05pm
Brett Fleishman, Senior Analyst 350.org

Carbon Risk and Fossil Fuel Divestment

2:05pm 2:30pm (20 min + 5 min for questions)
Bevis Longstreth
Corporate Finance Lawyer and Professor; Author of Book of Reform in Fiduciary Law;
Former Director of College Retirement Equities Fund, GMO and AMVESCAP
Level I & II
2:30pm 2:45pm (10 min presentation + 5 min for questions)
A pragmatic case for Level II:
Jonas Kron, Esq.
Senior Vice President, Director Shareholder Advocacy
Trillium Asset Management

2:45pm 3:00pm (10 min presentation + 5 min for questions)

Ceres and the Investor Network on Climate Risk, active membership would cover Level
I & II criteria:
Ana Zacapa
California Director
CERES
Level III
3:00pm 3:20pm (15 min presentation + 5 min for questions)
An analysis of return and risk in fossil free investing:
Thomas Kuh
Executive Director ESG Indexes
MSCI Inc.
3:20pm 3:40pm (15 min presentation + 5 min for questions)
Doing the math on divestment:
Lisa Goldberg
Director of Research
Aperio Group

3:40pm 3:50pm (8 min presentation + 2 min for questions)

A brief look at the 200 list, and how data and analytics enable risk
calculations:
Lee O'Dwyer CFA
Bloomberg LP
Final Questions
3:50pm 4:00pm

In order of agenda:

Bevis Longstreth
Bevis Longstreth is a retired partner of the New York-based law firm, Debevoise &
Plimpton. He was twice appointed by President Reagan as Commissioner of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, where he served from 1981 to 1984. For several years following
retirement, he taught financial market regulation at Columbia Law School. Among many
writings on financial matters, in 1986 he wrote Modern Portfolio Management and the
Prudent Man Rule (Oxford University Press), which led to the American Law Institutes
revision of the law of prudence for fiduciaries managing money. He has served extended
terms as director of various investment firms, such as College Retirement Equities Fund,
GMO and AMVESCAP and is currently serving as trustee for several tax-exempt entities.

Jonas Kron, Esq

Jonas is a senior vice president and Trilliums Director of Shareholder Advocacy and is
responsible for leading and coordinating Trilliums extensive advocacy program, which
works to engage companies on their environmental and social performance. His
advocacy work includes direct communications with company leadership, investor
education and awareness, shareholder proposals, and public policy advocacy at the federal
level. Jonas holds J.D. and masters degrees from Vermont Law School.

Ana Zacapa
Ana has 15 years of experience in the business and non-profit sectors. She currently leads
Ceres California office, responsible for expanding Ceres programmatic work, visibility and
partnerships in the West Coast. Prior to Ceres, Ana was a Principal and Senior Program
Officer at the Skoll Foundation. Prior to working at Skoll, Ana spent eight years in the
financial industry. Ana worked at Bank of America Securities as Vice President focused on
the renewable energy sector and at Bear Stearns as Vice President in investment banking
and emerging markets research. She graduated from Duke University and earned her
masters degree from the London School of Economics.

Thomas Kuh, PhD

Thomas Kuh is Executive Director for ESG Indexes at MSCI Inc. Prior to his current role at
MSCI Inc., he was Head of ESG Indices at RiskMetrics Group, which was acquired by MSCI
Inc. in June 2010. Dr. Kuh joined RiskMetrics in November 2009 through the acquisition of
KLD Research & Analytics. During his 17-year career at KLD, Dr. Kuh held a number of
positions, progressing from Research Analyst to Business Development Director and finally
Managing Director of KLD Indexes. Prior to KLD, he was a Professor of Economics at
Simmons College and a Teaching Fellow at Harvard University. Dr. Kuh received his MA and
PhD in Economics from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Lisa Goldberg, PhD

Lisa Goldberg, Aperio Groups Director of Research, continues as faculty at the
University of California, Berkeley where she serves as Director of Research at the Center
for Risk Management Research. Prior to joining Aperio Group, Ms. Goldberg was an
Executive Director of Research at MSCI where she directed research supporting pension
funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, with an emphasis on risk due to
extreme events asset allocation, and credit. Ms. Goldberg holds a B.A. degree in
Mathematics from the University of Rochester and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from
Brandeis University, and has held academic positions at UC Berkeley, City University of
New York, the Institute for Advanced Study, lInstitut des Hautes tudes Scientifiques
and the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute.

Lee O'Dwyer
Drawing from fifteen years of experience in traditional and alternative investments, Lee
ODwyer helps Bloomberg clients gain maximum leverage of their terminal toward
actionable strategies. Discussing equity fundamental valuations, earnings & idea generation
tools, ESG data, and portfolio analysis with top analysts and portfolio managers, ODwyers
experience and communication style lets him calibrate around the varied needs and styles
of clients, allowing him to interpret their comments and provide meaningful and useful
support. Originally from England, ODwyer is a member of the CFA Institute and has
earned the right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Karen Hester
Kalb, Dan; Rebecca Saltzman; Bolotina, Olga; robertraburn@covad.net
some fun you missed at Rotunda Building today/link to UT paper that exposes the coal deal with Tagami
Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:52:56 PM

Heres the article that exposed the whole frickin deal Tagami has in mind!
http://www.sunad.com/index.php?tier=1&article_id=33765
You have to stop this madness and appreciate your efforts!
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

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Union Pacific Railroad

MLED

ffiCfc OF THE CITY eLtRf.

OAKLAND

14 MAY 29 PM 14:52
ity Attorne7s*bffice

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO.

C.M.S.

I N T R O D U C E D BY C O U N C I L M E M B E R S Kalb, Gibson McElhaney and Kaplan

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS
FOSSIL FUEL MATERIALS, INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, COAL, AND
PETROLEUM COKE, ALONG CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS, THROUGH
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS, THROUGH THE CITY OF OAKLAND
WHEREAS, there is a new push by the fossil fuel industry to transport, export, and/or
refine coal, crude oil and petroleum coke ("petcoke")a byproduct of oil refiningon the West
Coast and in California; and
WHEREAS, California refineries are in the process of securing permits to build rail
terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils from North Dakota, and existing
rail terminals are securing permits to import tar sands and crude oil without public notice or
CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, other refineries have similar projects planned to transport hazardous crude
by rail through Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
WHEREAS, California public and private Ports are in the process of securing permits to
build or expand export facilities for coal and petcoke; and
WHEREAS, the California Assembly passed, and Governor Brown signed, Assembly
Joint Resolution No. 35 in September 2012 urging the President and Congress to enact
legislation to restrict the export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt
regulations on greenhouse gas emissions or hazardous air emissions that are at least as
restrictive as those adopted by the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also recognized the risk of transporting
volatile crude by rail by passing Executive Order #125 directing New York state agencies to
conduct a comprehensive review of crude rail transport safety procedures and emergency
response preparedness and Albany County, NY, issued a moratorium on crude increases at the
Port of Alliany pending a public health investigation. In California, the cities of Berkeley and
Richmond have passed resolutions concerning the safety of transporting crude by rail; and
WHEREAS, in Washington and Oregon, 27 communities have passed resolutions
against coal transport and export, and hundreds of other public officials, including Governors
Inslee and Kitzhaber, state and federal agencies, tribes, health entities, religious leaders and
other community leaders, have recognized the harms of coal by making statements of concern

1383417

about coal transport and export. The State of Washington Department of Ecology, through its
SERA process, is requiring a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis of proposed coal
export facilities and rail transport from mine to port to plant spanning the Powder River Basin to
Asia for the proposed Longview and Bellingham coal export facilities; and
WHEREAS, in Illinois, the State Attorney General, Governor and Chicago mayor are
pursuing new legislation to better regulate petcoke storage or to ban new facilities due to
residents' concerns about dust and health impacts; and
WHEREAS, the last few years have seen a dramatic rise in transport of crude by rail
nationwide - the volume of crude by rail shipments in Northern California increased by 50
percent last year aloneaccompanied by a similar rise in accidents, nearty 100 in 2013. More
crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 than in the preceding four decades,
amounting to more than 1.15 million gallons in 2013. In July 2013, 72 tanker cars loaded with 2
million gallons of flammable crude oil derailed in Lac-Megantic, Canada, causing explosions that
destroyed dozens of buildings, killed 47 people, and caused over $1 billion in damages; and
WHEREAS, coal and petcoke are commonly transported via open-top rail cars and a
large volume of those materials escape during transit. According to the BNSF Railway, each
coal car in a 125-car coal train loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal per car in transit, for a
total of up to 60,000 lbs lost per train on an average trip. Uncovered rail cars contaminate cities,
towns, farmland, forestland, streams and rivers across California with coal dust, petcoke and
chunks of coal; and
WHEREAS, a federal Surface Transportation Board proceeding regarding the
transportation of coal by rail found that coal dust is a "pernicious ballast foulant" that can
destabilize rail tracks and can contribute to train derailments, and between July 2012-2013, at
least 40 coal trains in the U.S. derailed, causing four victims to lose their lives, large amounts of
coal to spill, major delay to other rail users, and significant costs to repair the damage; and
WHEREAS, coal from the Powder River basin is explosive, and the transportation of
coal in open rail cars and accumulation of coal on or near rail lines has been known to create
public safety hazards, including train derailments, explosions and fires; and
WHEREAS, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration recently acknowledged the failure to appropriately classify the
contents of crude oil shipments to reflect the hazardous and highly flammable nature of the
substances being transported by rail and the devastating consequences of a crude oil rail
accident including loss of life, property and environmental damage, and thus made
recommendations to avoid urban areas when transporting crude, and to improve rail safety
regulations for crude oil transport, including worse-case scenario emergency response plans;
and ,
WHEREAS, new coal and petcoke export terminals and crude by rail operations are
expected to result in a massive increase in train traffic in California, causing concerns about
blocked roads inhibiting the travel of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, access to waterways
near the rail lines for fishing and other recreational use, and other vehicle traffic, and potentially
catastrophic train derailments; and
WHEREAS, increased rail traffic in California from coal, petcoke and crude oil will lead
to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines, and exposure to particulate

-2-

matter from diesel engines has been linked to impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
increased cardiopulmonary mortality; measurable pulmonary inflammation; increased severity
and frequency of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions in children;
increased rates of heart attacks and strokes in adults; increased risk of cancer; and increased
asthma and lung disease in children; and
WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals - including mercury, arsenic, and lead and exposure to these toxic heavy metals in high concentrations is linked to cancer and birth
defects; and
WHEREAS, petroleum coke contains Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals - including arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc - at levels that that are
harmful to fish and wildlife as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, crude oil, like that coming from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be
volatile, highly flammable, and contain elevated concentrations of benzene, a potent
carcinogen; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal and petcoke traveling through the Bay Area
will follow routes adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and Oakland water front its
tributaries, and routes adjacent to the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
posing a serious threat to these ecosystems, and to California's agricultural irrigation and
drinking water supplies; and
WHEREAS, hauling crude oil, coal and petcoke into California involves traversing some
of the most challenging mountain passes in the nation, areas laced with earthquake faults and
numerous unsafe old steel and timber bridges over major watenrt/ays, greatly increasing the
probability of serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, trains delivering crude oil, coal, and petcoke would travel on Oakland's
existing train lines, which pass through our most vulnerable communities of East and West
Oakland, which, throughout Oakland's history, have been exposed to significant environmental
harm from industrial and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, given the record of crude-oil and coal rail accidents in recent years, an
event such as Lac Megantic or a coal train derailment could have catastrophic effects if it
occurred in any populated area; and
WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents do occur, oil companies spend
years in litigation over damages as strategy to undercut payments to affected communities or
deflect blame; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the combined crude oil, coal, and petcoke train
traffic through Oakland and other parts of California, in addition to the cumulative upstream and
downstream greenhouse gas impacts of these fossil fuels, must be analyzed prior to the
transport of any of these hazardous materials through our communities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council opposes using existing rail lines to
transport hazardous crude oil, coal and petcoke along California watenA/ays, natural habitats,
through densely populated areas, through the East Bay and Oakland, through special districts
and the Port of Oakland; and be it

-3-

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his/her designee shall:

Consider submitting comments in opposition to CEQA documents and any draft permit
approvals, such as air permits or zoning changes for transport of crude oil, coal and
petcoke, including a statement that any CEQA analysis must include a region-wide
cumulative impacts analysis by a lead agency to fully account for the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with multiple proposals for coal, petcoke and crude oil
transport and export, and crude refining, in California communities;

Submit a copy of this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. whereby the City
Council of Oakland requests that he take executive action similar to New York Governor
Cuomo's executive order directing state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to shipments of
volatile crude oil and a cumulative impacts analysis similar to the Washington
Department of Ecology for coal mining, transport and burning;

Submit copy of this Resolution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) whereby the City Council of Oakland urges that the BAAQMD require public
notice and CEQA review for all air permitting decisions made in connection with fossil
fuel rail terminals, or port facilities, including change of use decisions, such as the
BAAQMD's issuance of a permit to operate a crude-by-rail project without any notice to
the public or environmental and health review;

Address impacts to public health, safety, property, air quality and surface and
groundwater caused by the transport of coal, petroleum coke, and crude oil through
Oakland by actively enforcing applicable local public health, safety, building, electrical,
nuisance, and fire codes and by actively enforcing applicable federal environmental
statutes delegated to Oakland;

Submit a letter to rail carriers involved in transport of crude oil, coal, and petcoke in
California requesting:
0
that the rail carriers make public any plans for new or expanded rail facilities or
significant rail traffic volume increases;
0
that the rail carriers provide representatives to meet periodically with local citizen
groups and local government officials from Oakland to seek mutually acceptable ways to
address local concerns;
0
that the rail carriers update its emergency response plan with the City of Oakland
to account for the transport of crude oil, coal, and petroleum coke and the potential
emergencies that could occur with accidents including these hazardous materials;
0
that the rail carriers conduct environmental monitoring in Oakland, including but
not limited to groundwater and air monitoring, and submit environmental monitoring or
testing information to local government entities on a monthly basis for 10 years; and
0
that the rail carriers implement measures to reduce community impacts including,
but not limited to, drafting road improvement plans for grading, widening, or othenA/ise
providing crossings at intersections that would be impacted by rail traffic increases to

-4-

prevent rail accidents and offset congestion; and require the railroad to .pay in full for
these upgrades in Oakland; and

Submit a copy of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
whereby the City Council of Oakland seeks assurances that the CPUC railroad safety
program is adequately implemented in Oakland and other areas that may receive crude
by rail shipments, including investigation, inspection, infrastructure improvement,
detection and mitigation of risks or any other procedures or mechanisms available to the
CPUC;

Send a copy of this Resolution to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is

developing regulations for federal rail safety of shipment of fossil fuels by rail in DOT-111
cars;

Alert and communicate opposition to other cities along the transportation route, and
support their efforts;

Work through the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and other relevant organizations to articulate opposition;

Alert our State legislative representatives and our lobbyists in Sacramento and enlist
their help; and

Lobby federal Senators and Representatives to enlist their help to engage the
appropriate regulatory authorities at the federal level.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -

BROOKS, GALLO. GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND

PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN

NOESABSENTABSTENTION.

ATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Oakland, California

-5-