Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: FW: Proposed Ordinances Banning Coal in Oakland
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:37:43 PM
image002.png
Ltr re Coal Ordinance 2016.6.27.pdf
PRR 16355
FYI
Shereda F. Nosakhare
Deputy Chief of Staff | Office of the Mayor
1 Frank. H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Oakland CA 94612
Office: 510.238.3141 | Direct: 510.238.7439 |
Email: snosakhare@oaklandnet.com|http://www2.oaklandnet.com/
Government/o/Mayor/index.htm
FYI
Dear Honorable Mayor Libby Schaaf, Ms. Lynette Gibson McElhanney, Council President
and the Members of the City Council Attached please find Stice & Blocks letter on behalf
of our client, Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal response re: the Notice of Hearing for
the potential adoption of an ordinance banning coal and petcoke in the City of Oakland at the
Oakland Global Trade and Logistics Center on the former Oakland Army Base.
Regards
Kathy Kimura-Barnes
KATHY KIMURA-BARNES
Senior Paralegal
kbarnes@sticeblock.com
PHONE 510.735.0031
2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612
David C. Smith
(510) 735-0034
dsmith@sticeblock.com
Proposed Ordinances Banning Coal in Oakland and Potential Application to the Bulk
Commodities Terminal at the West Gateway of the Oakland Global Trade and Logistics
Center
(2)
Pronouncement to the world that Oakland is not a trustworthy or reliable place to
invest or do business in that even City-recognized vested property rights are summarily abandoned in
the face of ever-evolving political agendas; and
(3)
Exposing the City and its General Fund to hundreds of millions of dollars in liability,
beginning with the return of almost $150 million to the State of California and hundreds of millions
more in damages to the developers of the project. 1
1
Undoubtedly, the City Attorney would refer to Section 8.7 of the DA as to this final point. As discussed below,
Section 8.7 would be inapplicable in this instance. Section 8.7 applies expressly and exclusively to Events of
City leaders have hired a consultant to come up with enough ammunition to prove that coal is
indeed dangerous, and thus allow Oakland to adopt a health regulation that would essentially
make the coal deal unworkable. (Empahsis added.)
The mayor believes Oakland has the authority to act as long as [the developer] hasnt taken out
the final permits for the project. He isnt likely to do so until spring.
The city has telegraphed its intentions in a way it hadnt done before, Earthjustice attorney
Irene Gutierrez said of Oaklands possible move to block coal shipments.
In the wake of this reporting, the City agendized a hearing for February 16, 2016, to retain ESA
to review the record compiled to date regarding coal. In the proposed retention, the staff
recommended waiving all standard advertising, competitive bidding, and request for
proposals/qualifications competitive selection requirements mandated in the Oakland Municipal Code
for such work. According to the proposed scope of work, the cost would be $208,000 and would take
seven to eight (7-8) months.
But just before the hearing was called to order, Mayor Schaaf asked the Council to refrain from
acting on the proposal so that we may further evaluate other, potentially more effective options, to
bar coal shipments through Oakland. I remain strongly opposed to the transport of coal and crude oil
2
3
This hearing date is erroneously noted to be September 15, 2015 in at least one place in the Ordinances.
San Francisco Chronicle, December 2, 2015
The scope of review was substantially expanded to include the now almost eight month old
record on coal as well as the yet-to-be-compiled record on other hazardous fossil fuel
materials;
Notwithstanding the significant expansion in work and scope, the budget for the effort was
slashed from $208,000 to $120,000; and
Notwithstanding the significant expansion in work and scope, the time frame for completing the
review and reporting back to the Council was slashed from 7-8 months to six weeks.
At the May 3, 2016, City Council hearing, not only did the Council approve the ESA scope
proposal, they also unanimously voted to override normal City Council scheduling protocols for
scheduling hearings through the City Rules Committee, and directly scheduled tonights June 27 hearing
on the proposed Ordinances.
At no point prior to the June 24 Notice of Hearing did the City provide the public notice that the
Ordinances were drafted and were being considered for adoption by the City Council. Moreover, there
was no information provided on the outstanding ESA Report. However, on June 1, 2016, Senator
Hancock issued a press release regarding the status of her two remaining bills in the Legislature. Buried
4
be inconsistent or in conflict with the intent, purposes, terms, standards or conditions of this
Agreement;
o Clear and explicit in the record are the fact that the description of the Project -exhaustively reviewed by the City, including full review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) -- are the inclusion of the Terminal as a core part of
the Project, exhibits expressly presenting the full array of legal commodities then being
shipped in bulk commodity terminals including coal, and the fact that the application
was presented and approved without restriction as to commodities to be shipped. Now
imposing the operational restrictions in the Ordinances would absolutely be
inconsistent and in conflict with the intent, purposes, terms, standards and conditions of
this Agreement.
materially change, modify, or reduce the permitted uses of the Project Site, the permitted
density or intensity of use of the Project Site . . . (emphasis added.)
o The Ordinances are an explicit limitation and legal prohibition of uses and intensity of
uses expressly approved and allowed under the DA.
materially change or modify, or interfere with, the timing, phasing, or rate of development of
the Project . . .
o As the City is well aware, the operation of the Terminal is the subject of an existing
exclusive option agreement, and the proceedings regarding coal and the other noted
substances have already violated this provision. Adoption of the Ordinances and
attempts to impose them on the Project most certainly would exacerbate and interfere
with the timing, phasing, and rate of development of the Project.
materially interfere with or diminish the ability of a Party to perform its obligations under the
City Approvals, including this Agreement, or the Subsequent Approvals, or to expand, enlarge or
accelerate Developers obligation under the City Approvals including this Agreement or the
Subsequent Approvals . . .
o The illegal prohibitions imposed by the Ordinances would have a devastating impact and
would absolutely interfere with or diminish the ability of the Developer Parties to
perform their obligations under the City Approvals. The most prominent issue is not
simply the elimination of a single commodity or group of commodities, but the cloud of
uncertainty and unpredictability about similar future actions by the City in the future
destabilizing potential interest in the facility.
materially modify, reduce, or terminate any of the rights vested in City Approvals or the
Subsequent Approvals made pursuant to this Agreement prior to expiration of the Term.
o The City itself recognized, in the Staff Report for the September 21, 2015 hearing on
coal, the vested nature of the Project pursuant to the DA: Major Components of the
Army Base Redevelopment. . . . (4) a Development Agreement (DA), which vested the
rights to develop, among other things, the Break Bulk Terminal on the West Gateway,
subject to a narrow exception for certain later-enacted health and/or safety
regulations. 6 The vested approval of the Project, including the Terminal, is without
restriction and the Ordinances would fundamentally and foundationally modify, reduce,
and potentially terminate rights vested in City Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals.
As noted, never before has the City suggested an independent right to regulate or prohibit legal
commodities proposed to be shipped through the Terminal outside of the, to use the Citys own words,
narrow exception for certain later-enacted heath and/or safety regulations. The assertion now in the
Ordinances is only one of many examples that desperation has taken over such that no measures, even
at the expense of the rule of law and exposing the City to significant legal liability, will stand in the way
of political expediency on this issue.
THE ORIDNANCES ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW
The DA, and California law generally, recognize that a City cannot contract away its police power
to keep its citizens safe. In the DA, that principle is embodied in Section 3.4.2:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary,
City shall have the right to apply City Regulations adopted by City after
the Adoption Date, if such application (a) is otherwise permissible
pursuant to Laws (other than the Development Agreement Legislation),
and (b) City determines based on substantial evidence and after a public
hearing that a failure to do so would place existing or future occupants
or users of the Project, adjacent neighbors, or any portion thereof, or all
of them, in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or
safety. . . .
The Staff Report, ESA Report, and the Ordinances recognize this as the one potential narrow
exception allowing the City to impose new regulations on the Project. The first required showing to
invoke Section 3.4.2 and impose a new regulation on the Project is that such regulation, (a) is otherwise
permissible pursuant to Laws . . . . In other words, it has to be legal under state and federal law. The
Ordinances are not. They are preempted by federal law as was demonstrated by the materials
submitted to the City during the September 21, 2015 proceedings.
TABLE 5-7
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FROM RAIL TRANSPORT, STAGING/SPUR TRAVEL,
UNLOADING, STORAGE, TRANSFER AND SHIP LOADING OF COAL AT OBOT
tons/yr
lbs/day
TSP
PM10
PM2.5
TSP
PM10
PM2.5
2,102
988
148
12,012
5,646
847
Oakland
82
38
468
220
33
So Emeryville
35
17
203
95
14
San Leandro
Rail Transport*
BAAQMD
98
46
562
264
40
156
78
18
889
445
67
SUBTOTAL - Oakland
238
116
18
1,357
665
100
Unloading
11.9
5.7
0.9
66.0
31.2
4.7
Storage
3.2
1.5
0.2
17.7
8.4
1.3
Transfer
10.4
4.9
0.7
57.6
27.2
4.1
Transloading
11.9
5.7
0.9
66.0
31.2
4.7
SUBTOTAL
37.5
17.7
2.7
207.3
98.1
14.8
276
134
21
1,564
763
115
OBOT Operations
* Uncontrolled air emissions of fugitive dust from open coal filled rail cars. .
Again, all such figures are sheer speculation and conjecture by ESA, no specific commodity or quantity of
commodity having been confirmed to this date.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html
David Smith
STICE & BLOCK, LLP
cc:
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: California Senate moves to delay Oakland coal-export plant
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:39:03 PM
PRR #16355
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Hunt, Michael <MHunt@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:02 PM
Subject: California Senate moves to delay Oakland coal-export plant
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>, "Moss, Tomiquia"
<TMoss@oaklandnet.com>, "EricaTerryDerryck@gmail.com"
<EricaTerryDerryck@gmail.com>
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-Senate-moves-to-delay-Oakland7957353.php?t=ff32b9e01f
Michael Hunt | Special Assistant | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland
Office: 510-238-7167 | Cell: 510-967-7524 | Email: mhunt@oaklandnet.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: From Senator Hancock"s Office: Oakland-area survey shows overwhelming opposition to proposed coalexport terminal
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:39:38 PM
PRR # 16355
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Nosakhare, Shereda <SNosakhare@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: From Senator Hancock's Office: Oakland-area survey shows overwhelming
opposition to proposed coal-export terminal
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>
FYI
Excuse any spelling errors sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Male, Melissa" <Melissa.Male@sen.ca.gov>
Date: April 28, 2016 at 2:36:11 PM PDT
To: "Male, Melissa" <Melissa.Male@sen.ca.gov>
Subject: From Senator Hancock's Office: Oakland-area survey shows
overwhelming opposition to proposed coal-export terminal
Mayor Schaaf, Councilmembers, and Staff:
Senator Hancock wanted to make sure that we share with you the just-released
results of her recent survey of constituents regarding the proposed coal-export
terminal. Here is the link to the press release:
As some of you may know, my colleague who has been working on this issue,
Isabel Cortes, in on leave until May 9th. Should you have any questions about
this matter during her absence, please be in touch with our District Director, Terri
Waller.
Thank you,
Melissa
_______________________________________________________
Melissa Male
District Representative
Office of Senator Loni Hancock
1515 Clay Street, Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612
P: 510.286.1333 F: 510.286.3885
Melissa.Male@sen.ca.gov
Click here to visit Senator Hancocks website and sign up for her enewsletter.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: FW: Senator Hancock: Letter to CTC Chair Dunn - Oakland Army Base Project and Prop 1B Funds
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:40:53 PM
Letter to CTC Chair Dunn_Oakland Army Base and Prop 1B Funds.pdf
PRR #1635
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Nosakhare, Shereda <SNosakhare@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:54 PM
Subject: FW: Senator Hancock: Letter to CTC Chair Dunn - Oakland Army Base Project and
Prop 1B Funds
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>, "Moss, Tomiquia"
<TMoss@oaklandnet.com>, "Cappio, Claudia" <CCappio@oaklandnet.com>, "Nichols,
Matthew" <MDNichols@oaklandnet.com>
Shereda
Shereda F. Nosakhare
Deputy Chief of Staff | Office of the Mayor
1 Frank. H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Oakland CA 94612
Office: 510.238.3141 | Direct: 510.238.7439 |
Email: snosakhare@oaklandnet.com|http://www2.oaklandnet.com/
Government/o/Mayor/index.htm
Good Afternoon:
Please see the attached letter sent to CTC Chair Dunn by Senator Loni Hancock. Please feel
free to contact me if you have any questions.
Best,
Isabel Cortes
Office of Senator Hancock
1515 Clay St., Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612
isabel.cortes@sen.ca.gov
510.286.1333
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: Update on Senator Hancock"s bill/SB 1277
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:43:54 PM
PRR #1635
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Niccolo De Luca <ndeluca@townsendpa.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM
Subject: Update on Senator Hancock's bill/SB 1277
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>, "Nosakhare, Shereda"
<SNosakhare@oaklandnet.com>, "slandreth@oaklandnet.com"
<slandreth@oaklandnet.com>, "ccappio@oaklandnet.com" <ccappio@oaklandnet.com>,
"Lynette McElhanney (Lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com)" <Lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>,
"Marqusee, Alexander G. <AMarqusee@oaklandnet.com> (AMarqusee@oaklandnet.com)"
<AMarqusee@oaklandnet.com>
Today Senate Bill 1277 (Hancock) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: City
of Oakland: Coal Shipment advanced out of the Senate Environmental Quality
committee with 5 votes. The focus of the discussion was on whether or not the state
was the appropriate body to trigger the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
or if the City of Oakland should be responsible. Ultimately it came down to a party
line vote that saw the bill advance.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: Update from the Senate Transportation Committee Hearing today/Senator Hancock"s two coal related bills
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:44:18 PM
PRR 1635
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Niccolo De Luca <ndeluca@townsendpa.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM
Subject: Update from the Senate Transportation Committee Hearing today/Senator Hancock's
two coal related bills
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>, "Nosakhare, Shereda"
<SNosakhare@oaklandnet.com>, "tmoss@oaklandnet.com" <tmoss@oaklandnet.com>,
"Lynette McElhanney (Lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com)" <Lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>,
"Marqusee, Alexander G. <AMarqusee@oaklandnet.com> (AMarqusee@oaklandnet.com)"
<AMarqusee@oaklandnet.com>, "Barbara Parker (BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org)"
<BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>, "Illgen, Richard" <RIllgen@oaklandcityattorney.org>,
"slandreth@oaklandnet.com" <slandreth@oaklandnet.com>, "ccappio@oaklandnet.com"
<ccappio@oaklandnet.com>, "cdaniel@oaklandnet.com" <cdaniel@oaklandnet.com>,
"shom@oaklandnet.com" <shom@oaklandnet.com>, "Bawa, Kiran
(KBawa@oaklandnet.com)" <KBawa@oaklandnet.com>, "Segarra, Jonathan
(JSegarra@oaklandnet.com)" <JSegarra@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: Alex Gibbs <agibbs@townsendpa.com>
Team Oakland,
I wanted to send a quick update as today in the Senate Transportation Committee
Senator Hancocks two bills, SB 1277 and SB 1279 were heard.
Summary:
There was a lot of discussion at Committee. In closing, Senator Hancock stated that
she is not against the project, but she is against the product which is coal. When
pressed if this is a local matter she stated that EIRs for large projects have been
addressed before by state legislation, she stated the state has made a large
investment in this project and has authority to do so, and she also raised that over
the years legislation against coal has been approved, and this is no different.
Outcome:
This bill successfully moved out of committee with an 8 to 3 vote and is headed to the
Senate Environmental Quality Committee. I dont yet have the date of the hearing.
This bill was held in committee and the next steps will be resolved in the next few
days.
Niccolo De Luca
Senior Director of Northern California
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
O: 510-835-9050 M: 510-681-7306
ndeluca@townsendpa.com
www.townsendpa.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: FW: NYT: Oakland Votes to Block Large Shipments of Coal
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:45:45 PM
PRR # 1635
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Fertitta, George <gfertitta@bloomberg.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:07 PM
Subject: FW: NYT: Oakland Votes to Block Large Shipments of Coal
To: Libby Schaaf <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>
George Fertitta
CEO
Bloomberg Associates
25 East 78th Street
New York, NY 10075
o: +1 212.205.0239
e: gfertitta@bloomberg.org
SAN FRANCISCO The city of Oakland, Calif., on Monday banned the transport and
storage of large coal shipments, a blow to a developers plans to use a former Army base as
an export terminal to ship coal to China and other overseas markets.
The terminal would have been the largest coal shipment facility on the West Coast, with a
planned capacity to increase coal exports in the United States by 19 percent, according to the
Sierra Club, the environmental group.
Weeks of feisty debate over the ban, which the Oakland City Council unanimously passed late
Monday night and which will become law after a second reading next month, covered
familiar ground: the trade-offs between jobs and environmental concerns.
But the debate also raised the larger and more unusual question of how much a city should
weigh the global environmental impacts of the commodities that flow through its ports. A
report prepared by the city argued for a coal ban partly because the coal, once it was burned
overseas, would contribute to climate change and rising sea levels.
Oakland cannot afford to ignore the scientific evidence that clearly show the harmful effects
and risk associated with coal, said Dan Kalb, a City Council member who proposed the ban
along with the mayor, Libby Schaaf. With this new law, were taking the steps needed to
protect our community, our workers and our planet.
The citys report calculated that the millions of tons of coal exported annually through the port
of Oakland would release significantly more greenhouse gases than produced each year by all
five oil refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area. And the report noted that Oakland was
especially vulnerable to rising sea levels.
The ban is the second blow for the coal industry on the West Coast in recent weeks. In May,
the United States Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit for a coal terminal planned 90
miles north of Seattle on the grounds that it would endanger wildlife.
The report, which was prepared by Claudia Cappio, an assistant city administrator, warned of
the risks of cancer, heart and lung ailments and childhood developmental problems resulting
from exposure to what it called fugitive dust emissions the airborne particles generated
from handling, transporting and loading coal onto ships.
The coal would have been shipped from Utah and other western states to the Oakland Bulk
and Oversized Terminal, which is on an abandoned Army base across the Bay from San
Francisco.
The lead investor in the project, Phil Tagami, the chief executive and president of the
California Capital and Investment Group, warned in an email of legal consequences from
the decision.
Exactly how much of the citys limited resources and how many jobs for West Oaklanders
are this Council willing to sacrifice on this crusade? he asked.
Mr. Tagami is one of the most prominent developers in Oakland and is a friend and political
supporter of Californias governor, Jerry Brown, a former mayor of the city.
A lawyer for Mr. Tagami, David Smith of the firm Stice & Block, wrote in a letter to the
Council before the vote that a ban would be a pronouncement to the world that Oakland is
not a trustworthy or reliable place to invest or do business.
Mr. Smith called the argument that the coal exported from Oakland increased the emissions of
greenhouse gases nonsensical and absurd because power plants overseas would burn coal
from somewhere else if they did not get coal from the Oakland port.
Mr. Smith also asked whether the concern over the global consequences of the coal would
apply to other goods that move through the city and its ports. Under this approach, the city
would have to hold gas station owners responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from cars
that refuel at their facility, he said.
The vote comes at a time when Oakland is increasingly shifting toward technology jobs
and away from the citys blue-collar heritage. Pandora, the streaming music service, is based
in Oakland, and Uber is moving its headquarters there next year.
-Tarara Deane-Krantz
Bloomberg Philanthropies
This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It
may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by
replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from
your system. Thank you.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: Assembyman Bonta"s No Coal Concerns
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:47:29 PM
Letter Bonta 7-6-2016.pdf
PRR 1635
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: lora jo foo <ljfoo70@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:41 PM
Subject: Assembyman Bonta's No Coal Concerns
To: Libby Schaaf <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>
Cc: Nancy Nadel <nnadel@gmail.com>, Ted Franklin <ted@tedfranklin.net>
Dear Mayor Schaaf,
Last Friday, a group from No Coal in Oakland met with Assemblyman Rob Bonta and were surprised to learn that
he believed that the city's adoption of the No Coal Ordinance stands on weak legal grounds. He also mentioned a
desire to play a role in bringing you and Phil Tagami together to reach a deal that would avoid litigation.
We were concerned that Mr. Bonta did not seem familiar with Section 3.4.2 of the Development Agreement or the
Citys argument that the various agreements between the city and the developer do not provide him a vested right to
export any or all bulk commodities. We forwarded the attached letter to Mr. Bonta explaining why the developer's
threatened lawsuit has no legs to stand on. We thought you should be aware of Mr. Bonta's current position and his
hope to assist the City in avoiding litigation.
No Coal in Oakland appreciates your leadership and the Citys strong action on this issue. Please don't hesitate to
call us if you have any questions about our meeting with Mr. Bonta or the attached letter to him.
Sincerely,
lora jo
lora jo foo
No Coal in Oakland
510-282-9454
nocoalinoakland.org
If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. Albert Einstein
No Coal
In Oakland
349 Mandela Parkway
Oakland, CA 94607
510-282-9454
April 1, 2016
Via Electronic Mail
Claudia Cappio
Assistant City Administrator
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland 94612
Dear Assistant City Administrator Cappio,
In February, No Coal in Oakland opposed the hiring of private consulting firm ESA to play a
central, and likely decisive, role in the Citys evaluation of the evidence that supports a ban on
handling coal at the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) at the former Oakland Army
Base (Project).
In our judgment, if this proposal had been adopted, ESA, an organization that enjoys little
credibility in Oaklands environmental justice community, would have usurped the judgment of
elected officials to decide whether substantial evidence supports a determination that a failure to
[adopt an ordinance banning coal] would place existing or future occupants or users of the
Project [or] adjacent neighbors in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or
safety.1
ESAs original proposal called for a lengthy eight-month review process. ESA has now returned
with a revised draft scope of work that eliminates some of the bulk of ESAs prior proposal, but
retains for ESAa company that earns its keep by writing environmental impact reports funded
by developersa central role in determining the level of danger to health or safety that the
community should tolerate.
For the reasons set forth in our letter to Mayor Schaaf in February, we consider the involvement
of any consulting firm that is in the business of writing EIRs as unnecessary and potentially
prejudicial to the Citys right and duty to protect its residents health and safety. We did not
2013 Development Agreement By and Between the City of Oakland and Prologis CCIG Oakland
Global, LLC Regarding the Property and Project Known as Gateway Development/Oakland Global
(DA), section 3.4.2.
1
single out ESA for criticism because our objection was based on the institutional bias that is
common to all such consulting firms. A review of the resumes of the team of experts ESA
proposes to assign to the review shows that our fears of institutional bias were not unfounded.
We dont doubt ESAs intimate familiarity with the fossil fuel industries but so far as we can
determine from their resumes, they have overwhelmingly supported developers, rather than the
communities affected by the developments they analyze.
We proposed, as an alternative to hiring a private consulting firm that depends on the goodwill of
the fossil-fuel and other industries for their livelihood, the appointment of an independent
commission consisting of public health experts including scholars and researchers, as well as
practitioners familiar with the health issues of the disadvantaged minority communities that live
down by the tracks. ESAs team includes not a single public health expert.
No Coal in Oakland understands that some City Councilmembers feel the need for a distillation
of the evidence that was provided to them with great effort and at great expense in connection
with the September 21, 2015 public hearing. However, it is the City Council and not a private
firm like ESA that must determine whether the weight of the evidence is sufficient to support the
adoption of an ordinance under 3.4.2. Accordingly, we think it is important to establish more
clearly the limited role that a third party can constructively play. Most importantly, the job of
the reviewer should be to summarize the evidence that supports an ordinance banning coal or
imposing other restrictions. It is also to present in clear, non-technical language the facts
concerning potential health and safety impacts of a coal terminal in OBOT, based upon relevant
factual research and expert opinions. The presentation should leave to the City Council the
question of whether the risks rise to the level of substantial endangerment, a term that we
assume ESA intends as shorthand to the substantive legal standard under section 3.4.2.
We remain skeptical of ESAs ability to fairly summarize evidence that contradicts their record
of EIRs supporting refinery and pipeline interests and we continue to urge that the City accept
the substantial evidence received in 2015 or employ an independent panel over commercial
consulting firms such as ESA. Nevertheless, we appreciate the opportunity to offer specific
suggestions on the draft scope of review, and we submit the following recommendations:
1. The review must be conducted by a team that includes relevantly trained public health
experts and it must include analysis of the baseline public health setting in West Oakland
and other Oakland communities that may be impacted by coal shipments.
The potential health and safety effects of rail transportation and handling of coal at an Oakland
maritime facility must be evaluated in the context of the public health of the impacted
neighborhoods and populations. In September, there was substantial testimony concerning the
health problems of West Oakland, in particular, that are already present and in violation of health
equity. Any assessment of coal impact must be made relative to this baseline context.
Failure to include in the draft SOW any baseline health assessment of the populations identified
in section 3.4.2. might derive from the fact that the ESA team does not contain a single public
2
health expert. Given that the central issue is the health and safety impacts of coal export, for any
team to be qualified it must include public health professionals with expertise in air, noise, water
and socio-behavioral-related health impacts.
2. The review should be limited to coal and petcoke.
The draft scope would expand the Citys review process beyond coal and petcoke to encompass
fuel oils including heating oil, off-road diesel fuel, high-sulfur diesel, residual fuel oil for
furnaces and boilers, and fuel for low- and medium-speed diesel engines as well as all grades of
gasoline.
The draft scope, citing information provided to date, states that these commodities are
expected to be imported to and exported from OBOT. We do not know who has provided this
information so we cannot comment on the accuracy of ESAs expectations, but we know that the
public controversy that the City needs to resolve promptly is the result of a coal companys
efforts to find an outlet for coal from its mines in Utah.
Expanding the range of commodities under review to cover myriad fossil fuel products, each
with its own public health and safety risks would delay resolution of the coal issue and bury coal
opponents in a high-stakes battle to respond to a mountain of research by fossil-fuel interests
allegedly proving that each of their products poses no danger to human health or safety. We are
fighting coalthe clear and present danger facing Oakland given the state of Utahs recent
legislative action to allocate $51 million to build a coal terminal at OBOT. Widening the range
of commodities at issue to numerous products threatens to dilute the Citys and the publics
limited resources to deal with coal.
The draft scope is largely silent on how it will review these other commodities which were not
covered in the September 21, 2015 hearing and related submissions. Is ESA going to simply cut
and paste from environmental impact reports it has written on behalf of fossil fuel projects
elsewhere? Obviously, there is no time for original research to be completed or for the public to
respond adequately. The City would have to hold an additional public hearing under section
3.4.2 to consider the health and safety impacts of each of the other commodities identified by
ESA. ESAs proposal to consider numerous commodities other than coal and petcoke at this time
would manufacture a crisis where one does not exist.
We submit that the most efficient path forward is to finish the Citys work on coal and let it be a
model of how other commodities will be dealt with, both in terms of procedure and substance.
3. The reviewers should not establish appropriate thresholds.
No Coal in Oakland opposes the proposal that ESA define appropriate thresholds to be used in
the determination of whether there is substantial evidence that the project is substantially
dangerous. It is appropriate for the City Council to be provided with an organized summary of
the evidence concerning health and impacts of use of coal as well as of the facts, reasonable
assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts in the record. In
3
contrast, thresholds are not evidence but are standards developed for a variety of purposes such
as screening when certain levels of reporting and analysis are required under environmental laws.
They may or may not offer adequate protection of human populations from substantial danger
as that term is used in section 3.4.2 of the DA. The City Council should not hand ESA (or any
third party) what amounts to final say over the definition of substantial danger when it is
ultimately their responsibility to evaluate.
4. The definition of substantial evidence in CEQA is generally acceptable, but contains
some language that is specific to CEQA and should not be used here.
The draft scope incorporates parts of the definition of substantial evidence contained in section
15384 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Although this definition is in
general accord with how courts have interpreted substantial evidence, the definition contains
some language that is specific to inquiries under CEQA. The draft scope eliminated some of this
language but inappropriately kept the CEQA language providing for the exclusion of evidence
of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts
on the environment. This phrase should be eliminated from the SOW. As the draft scope
acknowledges on page 2, This is not a CEQA review, and is not limited to CEQA topics.
Section 3.4.2 limits relevant evidence to evidence that bears on public health and safety, a scope
that is both narrower and broader than what may be considered under CEQA.
5. The Study Area, adjacent neighbors and nearby population are undefined and
unspecified, and if these terms are to be used at all, they must be defined and specified
explicitly in the next draft of the scope of work.
On page 4, the draft scope states that ESA will [c]haracterize the OBOT activities to be
considered within the scope of the Review, which include rail transportation of coal, fuel oils,
and gasoline within the West Oakland Study Area (to be specified by the City); and terminal
activities. This implies that any impact outside West Oakland (or in parts of West Oakland
that are deemed outside the currently undefined Study Area will not be considered by ESA
even if coal transport activities place these populations in a condition substantially dangerous to
their health or safety.
This point is made more explicit on page 5, where the draft scope assumes that the scope of
review excludes the rail transportation of coal, fuel oils, or gasoline from the point of origin to
the Study Area, except as the effects occur along the rail lines within the Study Area and
transportation of coal, fuel oils, or gasoline by ship from the point at which the commodity is
on-boarded in the Study Area to its ultimate destination. These limitations are not found in
section 3.4.2 and should be eliminated.
ESA should not exclude any evidence that bears on danger to the health and safety of the
projects occupants or adjacent neighbors. Adjacent neighbors should not be so narrowly
defined. The review must include all impacted Oakland neighborhoods, including at a minimum
those where coal trains, whether they arrive from northern or southern corridors, will pass
4
through, including Fruitvale, San Antonio, East Oakland, Chinatown, and Jack London Square.
The Study Area should also include neighborhoods such as North Oakland that are downwind
from OBOT.
In addition, on page 2, the draft scope of work states that ESA will review whether terminal
activities for the export of coal (or other hazardous fossil fuel materials) would be substantially
dangerous to workers or the nearby population. The term nearby population is undefined.
If it refers only to waterfront communities, then it must be revised to include other communities
in Oakland that would be affected by coal transport through Oakland.
The references to an undefined Study Area and nearby population, the defining of which is
left to the unconstrained discretion of City staff and/or ESA are not acceptable. If the next
revision of the scope of work uses these terms or the terms adjacent neighbors, they must be
defined precisely in terms of geography and their function within ESAs analysis. Those
definitions must incorporate our comments above.
6. The review should cover dangers not just from coal dust, but from diesel exhaust and
other health and safety impacts from the transport of coal.
An important consequence of the dedication of all or a large portion of the throughput of OBOT
to coal will be the incremental impacts from the heavier and higher volume loads associated with
coal. These include but are not limited to diesel exhaust, vibrations, noise, and traffic congestion,
and accidents / derailments.
7. The review must consider impacts on water.
The draft scope states that ESA will not consider any impacts on water, even though they may
pose a danger to human health and safety. As discussed in the report of Dr. Phyllis Fox, the
impacts on water could be quite severe and pose a danger to public health in West Oakland and
many other places, for example through contamination of drinking water and food supply.
Review of the evidence on potential fresh and Bay water contamination, environmental
destruction of the shoreline and of marine life and their impact on human health should be
included in the scope of review.
8. The review must include analysis of the cumulative impacts of this terminal on this
population.
Because humans live longer than the 66 year sunset of the Development Agreement, the
projections of health and safety impacts must reach and exceed the duration of that agreement.
Further, the cumulative effects of extended exposure to coal transport must be considered for
current and future residents and generations. We note that for these reasons, epigenetic
hazards of coal must also be considered.
9. The review must consider the GHG-related health and safety impacts of 66 years of coal
shipments as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and remains there for thousands of
years.
The quantities of coal to be shipped over an extended period of time will have a measurable and
increasing impact on climate such that local effects of climate change in the near and long-term
can be attributable to OBOT.
10. The commodities characterization is irrelevant and should be eliminated.
The clear and present danger facing Oakland is coal from Utah. Ultimately though, where the
coal will be shipped from, be it from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico Wyoming, or elsewhere, and
what type of coal will arrive at OBOT, are not within the control of the City, or, for that matter,
of TLS. Market forces control the type of coal that will be transported to Oakland. Furthermore,
there is no such thing as clean coal and so the impact of variations in coal types would not
meaningfully diminish the risks to human health and safety. The plan to, Describe and compare
U.S. coal types generally, and specifically Utah coal types by County and/or mine should be
abandoned.
11. The analysis of the regulatory setting should be eliminated or curtailed.
Analysis of the regulatory setting is not critical to protecting health and safety in Oakland.
Regulations may establish the floor but not the ceiling for what protecting health and safety
actually requires. In fact, no law prevents the City from providing greater protections than is
afforded through regulations.
Yet, all too often, fossil fuel proponents cite regulatory limits on exposures as if compliance with
those limits is equivalent to proof of no danger. This misuse of standards is pervasive. Two
days ago, on the radio, the developers representative asserted that coal is not hazardous because
it is not on Californias Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity. Exceedance of recognized standards for exposure to toxic substances is
strong evidence of a hazard. However the reverse is not true; even if an exposure to coal does not
exceed a current standard adopted by a governmental agency, or even if coal is not on a list of
chemicals, that does not ensure human health and safety are being protected. It is widely
recognized that U.S. toxics regulations are out of date and do not address all the mechanisms that
characterize many of the substances in coal. In an analogy, cigarettes are legal in all 50 states,
yet no one today disputes that they cause illness and death
Although the regulatory setting may be relevant from a legal point of view, defining the
regulatory setting is not an innocuous undertaking. The legal issues should be dealt with by the
City Attorney and not be outsourced.
12. The review should explicitly use the precautionary principle as its guiding framework.
Under the precautionary principle, an action or policy that has a suspected risk of causing harm,
must be assumed to be harmful unless proven to be safe with the burden of proof that it is not
harmful falling on those who wish to take the action. In other words, coal must be factually
proven to be safe and if there is any doubt, it should be considered harmful. The City Council
should also be guided by the precautionary principle in its decision-making.
13. The review should not accept as foundational facts or evidence any promises or
projections by the developer that are not enforceable through existing contracts or
regulations.
The review should be based on verifiable facts and conditions that are enforceable, and that the
developer agrees are enforceable, through existing contracts and regulations. Accordingly,
promises or projections concerning how coal will be transported, stored, or handled should not
be treated as facts unless they are enforceable. The draft scope refers in several places to
information received or to be received from the developer, none of which should be included as
evidence in the review unless verifiable and enforceable. The developers have suggested that
they will use covers on their coal cars. That product may be in the design stage, but is not in use
anywhere in the world and is therefore untested. Thus the review cannot represent as evidence
promises and speculation that such covers will be used unless there is a mechanism to compel
such use. Since Federal law prohibits the City from directly regulating rail traffic, the City would
have no ability to enforce covering coal cars. Furthermore, train covers cannot be considered
evidence of effective mitigation unless verifiable tests of their efficacy are submitted.
14. The review may not exclude evidence in support of an ordinance merely because it is
not part of the public record.
The draft scope implies that only public comments and other information in the City public
record that were received by October 7, 2015 may be considered by the City.
Nowhere does section 3.4.2 state that evidence to support an ordinance must be limited to
evidence produced at a public hearing. In order to impose an ordinance on the project under
section 3.4.2, the City must (1) hold a public hearing and (2) make a determination that there is
substantial evidence to support the ordinance. The plain language of section 3.4.2 does not
require that the determination of substantial evidence be based only on evidence submitted at a
public hearing for the adoption of a valid ordinance.
Accordingly, in categorizing, synthesizing, and summarizing information, the review should not
overlook other evidence submitted since October 7 that would support the conclusion that failure
to adopt an ordinance would result in danger to public health or safety.
15. The review should include only information supplied by the developer that has been or
will be promptly made public by the City.
The review must be limited to evidence that is publicly available. Any information that is
provided to ESA aside from what is already indexed as part of the public record of the public
hearing last fall must be made available for immediate public access without requiring public
records act requests. On page 2, the draft scope states that ESA will provide the City a list of
questions and specific requests for clarifying information from the proponent. Both the
questions posed and answers received should be made available to the public simultaneous with
their transmittal to and from the developers. In addition, The Citys web page devoted to the
project should include a separate section of documents received after October 7, 2015 that were
not included in the Citys index.
16. ESAs contract should end with the preparation of its report and opponent groups
must have adequate time to provide rebuttal to ESAs report in advance of any Council
deliberation or decision-making.
On page 11, in Table 2 Preliminary Draft Schedule, ESA proposes allocating 2.5 weeks to the
City to review its Draft Report and thereafter a 17 day public comment period. To ensure
adequate opportunity and time for the community of residents, neighbors, and coal opponent
groups to review, critique and rebut the Draft Report, ESAs report should be submitted to the
City and the public simultaneously.
The SOW also states that ESA understands that it will get a chance to rebut any criticisms of
its report and draft a revised report. In other words, ESA would get the last word on any
disputed issues. We strongly disagree with this reservation of the final word to an outside body.
If the publics criticism and rebuttal of the ESA Draft Report leads to conflicting evidence, the
City Council not ESA should decide what evidence it finds credible or not credible.
Respectfully,
/s Lora Jo Foo
Lora Jo Foo
No Coal in Oakland
Cc:
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: Public Review Draft Scope of Work regarding Health and/or Safety Effects of Coal at the OBOT
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:51:49 PM
SOW Oakland Review_PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT_032516.pdf
Resumes_032516.pdf
PRR 16355
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Libby Schaaf <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Fwd: Public Review Draft Scope of Work regarding Health and/or Safety Effects of
Coal at the OBOT
To: Claudia Cappio <ccappio@oaklandnet.com>
Did this get sent to the advocates?
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Schaaf, Libby" <LSchaaf@oaklandnet.com>
Date: March 28, 2016 at 3:01:40 PM EDT
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>
Subject: Fw: Public Review Draft Scope of Work regarding Health and/or
Safety Effects of Coal at the OBOT
FYI
Keara
To interested parties:
Attached is the revised Draft Scope of Work regarding health and/or safety effects of
coal and other hazardous fossil fuel materials that may be proposed for the Oakland
Bulk and Oversized Terminal. The revised draft hopefully addresses concerns that have
been raised regarding the previous draft. We understand there still may be concerns
about the need for the work, but if you any substantive comments, please submit
them no later than April 1, 2016 by 4:00 p.m.
City staff will consider all comments received and will revise the scope, as necessary,
prior to the tentatively scheduled City Council meeting on April 19, 2016, to consider
the award of the professional services contact.
Best,
Heather Klein, Planner III | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa,
Suite 2114 |Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510)238-3659| Fax: (510) 238-6538 | Email:
hklein@oaklandnet.com | Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning
www.esassoc.com
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.5066 phone
510.896.5825 fax
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandReviewofPublicCommentsReceived
RegardingPotentialHealthand/orSafetyEffectsof
CoalandOtherHazardousFossilFuelMaterials
ProposedattheOaklandBulkandOversizedTerminal
DraftApproachandPreliminaryScopeofWork
March25,2016
I.OVERVIEW
ESAispleasedtoprovidethisproposaltoreviewpubliccommentsthattheCityreceived
regardingthepotentialhealthand/orsafetyeffectsofrailtransportationandrelatedhandling
ofcertaincommoditiesproposedbytheOaklandBulkandOversizedTerminal(OBOT)atthe
formerOaklandArmyBase(Project).AsarticulatedbytheCity,thepurposeofthisreviewis
toassisttheCityindeterminingwhethertheinformationinitspublicrecordconstitutes
substantialevidence1thatwouldsupportafindingofsubstantialendangerment,pursuantto
andconsistentwiththerequirementsofthe2013DevelopmentAgreementByandBetween
CityofOaklandandPrologisCCIGOaklandGlobal,LLCRegardingthepropertyandProject
KnownasGatewayDevelopment/OaklandGlobal,(DA)sections3.4.2and3.4.4.2
Specifically,pursuanttoDAsection3.4.2,iftheCityfinds,baseduponsubstantialevidence,
thatafailureto[adopttheordinance]wouldplaceexistingorfutureoccupantsorusersof
theProject,adjacentneighbors,oranyportionthereof,orallofthem,inacondition
substantiallydangeroustotheirhealthorsafety,theCitymayimposenewregulationson
theProject.Inaddition,underDAsection3.4.4,theCitycanimposenewBuildingand/orFire
CodesontheProject.
TheESAanalysisofthepublicrecordwillbepresentedinaReportthatwillcategorizeand
assessthepubliccommentsandinformationthatwassubmittedinsupportofthose
commentstoassisttheCityCouncilinmakingadeterminationregardingwhetherornotthe
SubstantialevidencereferredtointhisdocumentisasdefinedinSection15384oftheCalifornia
EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA):(a)"Substantialevidence"meansenoughrelevantinformationand
reasonableinferencesfromthisinformationthatafairargumentcanbemadetosupportaconclusion,even
thoughotherconclusionsmightalsobereached.Argument,speculation,unsubstantiatedopinionor
narrative,evidencewhichisclearlyerroneousorinaccurate,orevidenceofsocialoreconomicimpactswhich
donotcontributetoorarenotcausedbyphysicalimpactsontheenvironmentdoesnotconstitutesubstantial
evidence;(b)Substantialevidenceshallincludefacts,reasonableassumptionspredicateduponfacts,and
expertopinionsupportedbyfacts.
2
PubliccommentsandpublicrecordinthisdocumentreferstoexistingdocumentsintheCitysproject
recordthatwerereceivedbyOctober7,2015,ontheArmyBaseRedevelopmentProject.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
informationinthepublicrecordconstitutessubstantialevidencethatwouldsupportafinding
ofsubstantialendangerment.
ThescopeofthisreviewisfocusedonthosecommoditieslistedintheProponentsDraftBasis
onDesign(BOD)datedJuly21,2015andthatarealsodirectlyorindirectlyaddressedinthe
2014OaklandCityCouncilResolutionNo.85054C.M.S.,opposingtransportationofcoaland
otherhazardousfossilfuelmaterialsthroughtheOakland.Specifically,thesecommodities
are:
a) bituminouscoal(washedcoal,cleancoal,orsoftcoal);
b) fueloils(heatingoil,offroaddieselfuel,highsulfurdiesel,residualfueloilsfor
furnacesandboilers,andfuelforlowandmediumspeeddieselengines);and
c) gasoline(allgrades)
Thescopeofthisreviewisalsospecificallylimitedtothepotentialhealthand/orsafetyeffects
topeople,pursuanttotherequiredfindinginDAsection3.4.2,above.3ThisisnotaCEQA
review,andisnotlimitedtoCEQAtopicsortheuseofregulatorystandardsassignificance
criteria,butratherwillconsiderthepubliccommentsastheymayapplytohealthand/or
safetyeffects,regardlessofwhetherthemechanismsfortheseeffectsarefullyunderstoodor
documentedinpeerreviewedscientificsources.
ANALYSIS
ESAwillreviewbackgroundinformationandpubliccommentsthatcouldbeusefultotheCity
indeterminingwhetherornotthereissubstantialevidencethattherailtransportand
terminalactivitiesfortheexportofcoal(orotherhazardousfossilfuelmaterials)wouldbe
substantiallydangeroustoworkersorthenearbypopulation.
Theworkproductwillbeafocusedshortterminitialreviewthatmayprovideadequate
evidenceforCitydeterminationsaddressingDAsections3.4.2and3.4.4.
TheelementsofAnalysisare:
Task1.1:ConfirmOBOTProjectDesign
Task1.2:CharacterizeOBOTActivitiesforCoalandOtherHazardousFossilFuel
Materials
Task1.3:ReviewPublicInputtoDateonArmyBaseRedevelopmentProject
Task1.4:SummarizeExistingRegulatorySetting
Task1.5:CommoditiesCharacterization
Task1.6:PrepareDraftReport
3Forexample,theStudyAreawillnotencompassthepotentialforbulkmaterialstobeintroducedintoBay
watersbysettlement.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
Task1.7:Revise/PrepareFinalReport(asneeded)/MeetingAttendance
Task1.8:DetailedScopingandConsultation
ESAandSubconsultants4
TheproposedESATeamiscomprisedofairqualityandhazardousmaterialsandrail
transportationriskexperts,particularlythosewithexpertiseregardingcoal.Proposed
subconsultantsincludeAdelanteConsulting(BarbaraTooleONeil)andMRS.
COSTHOURSOVERVIEW
SectionIV(Table1)providesapreliminarydraftofthelaborandcosteffort,whichisintended
asaninformedstartingpointfordiscussionofthisscalablescopeofwork.Asdrafted,we
estimateatotalofapproximately494hours($108K),includinglimitedengagementbythe
subconsultants(53hours),aswellasdetailedscopingandconsultationbyESAwiththeCity
necessarytopreparethedraftapproachandscopeofworkpresentedherein(65hours).
SCHEDULEOVERVIEW
SectionV(Table2)summarizesapreliminarydraftscheduleoftheproposedwork,also
intendedasastartingpointforrefinementincollaborationwiththeCity.Aswiththescopeof
work,theinitialschedulemakesinformedassumptionsandisscalabletomeettheCitys
intendedmilestoneofaCityCouncildeterminationinsummer2016.ThedraftshowsESA
performingworkoverafourweekperiod,providingadraftReporttotheCityinlateMay,
2016.
II.DRAFTAPPROACH/SCOPE
Task1.1:ConfirmOBOTProjectDesign
ConfirmwiththeCitytheproponentsprojectdesign,asspecifiedintheDraftBasis
onDesign(BOD)datedJuly21,2015,andsubsequentlyspecifiedintheproject
proponentscorrespondenceofJanuary20,2016,tobeusedastheproject
descriptionconsideredduringthereviewofthepublicinput(Task1.3).
Basedoninformationprovidedtodate,theproposedcommoditiesthatare
expectedtobeimportedtoandexportedfromOBOT,andconsideredinthisscope
ofwork,arebituminouscoal(washedcoal,cleancoal,orsoftcoal);fueloils
(heatingoil,offroaddieselfuel,highsulfurdiesel,residualfueloilsforfurnaces
andboilers,andfuelforlowandmediumspeeddieselengines);andgasoline(all
grades).(thelattertwobeinghazardousfossilfuelsandhavingsimilaradverse
characteristicsascrudeoilpertheCitys2014Resolution).
Throughoutthisdocument,ESAproposestoconductalltasksexceptwherespecificallynotedas[Named
Subconsultant]or[ESAandNamedSubconsultant].
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
o ExamineBODandDrawings.ReviewtheBODMaterialSafetyData
Sheetsfortheproposedcommodities.NotedifferencesinBOD,
developersreports,andCitygenerateddocumentsincurrentCity
record.ProvidetheCityalistofquestionsandspecificrequestsfor
clarifyinginformationfromtheproponent.5
o Describeproponentsproposedfacilitiesandinfrastructure(distinguish
existingfromanyproposednewchangesforclarityaboutthebaseline)
basedonadeterminationoftheprojectdescriptiontobeevaluatedin
thisanalysis.
o Describeproponentsproposedoperations.Describetheoperationsto
beevaluatedinthisanalysis,includingstructuralandprocedural
measuresproposedtocontrolemissionsandpreventspillsofbulk
commodities.IdentifythecharacteristicsoftheBODversusproponent
initiatedmitigatingmeasuresthathavebeenproposedforOBOT.
o IncludeconsiderationoftheexistingagreementbetweenCCIG(on
behalfofOBOT)andEastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrictregardingrail
traffic.
o Noteanydifferencesinthroughputbycommoditytype,facilitiesdesign
andprojectedoperations.
o Notetheproposedcombinationofcoal,fueloils,andgasolineand
projectedoperationsbasedonthesespecificcommoditiestransported
throughtheOBOTatthesametime.
o Describeproponentsproposaltoconfirmhowtheproposednewrail
willbeclassifiedandconstructedtobeadequateandappropriatefor
useintransportingtheheavyloadsassociatedwithcoalinparticular.
Task1.2:CharacterizeOBOTActivitiesforCoalandOtherHazardousFossilFuelMaterials
CharacterizetheOBOTactivitiestobeconsideredwithinthescopeoftheReview,
whichincluderailtransportationofcoal, fueloils,andgasolinewithintheWest
OaklandStudyArea(tobespecifiedbytheCity);andterminalactivitiessuchas
transloadingofthesecommoditiesfromrailcaratthebulkterminal;stockpilingor
otherstorageofthesecommoditiespendingonboardingformarinetransport;and
onboardingofthesecommoditiesformarinetransport.Theseactivitiesare
collectivelyreferredtoasterminalactivitiesthroughoutthisdocument.
Thereviewwillconsiderthecombinationofproposedbulkcommoditieslisted
above,ifproposedbytheproponent.
ESAwillpromptlysubmitthisdatarequesttotheCityinordertoexpediteobtainingtherequestedinformation
fromtheProponent.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
Thisscopeassumesthatthescopeofthereviewdoesnotincludethe:(i)rail
transportationofcoal,fueloils,orgasolinefromthepointoforigintotheStudy
Area,exceptastheeffectsoccuralongtheraillineswithintheStudyArea
(ii)transportationofcoal,fueloils,orgasolinebyshipfromthepointatwhichis
thecommodityisonboardedintheStudyAreatoitsultimatedestination.
Task1.3:ReviewPublicInputtoDateonArmyBaseRedevelopmentProject
ThoroughlyreviewtheexistingdocumentsintheCitysprojectrecordthatwere
receivedbyOctober7,2015ontheArmyBaseRedevelopmentProject(indexed
binderpreviouslyprovidedtoESAbytheCity),aswellasotherrelevantdocuments
(asdeterminedbytheCity)includingthe2012Amendmenttothe2002ArmyBase
RedevelopmentProjectEIR,EastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrict/CityMemorandum
ofAgreementregardingrailtraffic.
PrepareandmaintainforinclusionintheReportacomprehensivelistof
informationandsourcesprovidedinpubliccommentsthatareconsidered
appropriateforreviewandconsiderationthroughouttheworkdescribedinthis
scope.Organize/categorizeinformationandsourcesfromthepubliccomments
accordingtoparticularaspectsofpotentialhealthand/orsafetyeffects(whatthe
potentialeffectsare,andhowtheymayoccur)relevanttotheconsiderationof
substantialendangerment,pursuanttoDAsection3.4.2.
Healthrelatedtopicsthatpubliccommentsaddressandthatshallbeespecially
consideredinthereviewinclude,butarenotnecessarilylimitedto,thefollowing.
o Potentiallevelsoffugitivecoaldust;
o Estimateddieselparticulateandotherlocomotiveairemissionsinthe
StudyArea;
o Thresholdsthatemploymetricsthatdoanddonotrequirereceptor
modelingtodevelopspecifichumanexposureprojections;
o Variousparticulateandotherairpollutantcharacteristicsandquantities
bycommodityandbythespecificdesignandoperationofreceiving,
storage,andshippingfacilities;
o IncrementallocomotiveemissionsinWestOaklandresultingfromthe
transportofcoal,specificallyconsideringthatcoaltrainsareamongthe
heaviestandrequireadditionalfuelandproduceadditionalelevated
emissions;and
o Methodologytoquantifycomparativeeffectsofhaulingcoalversus
othercommodities.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
Safetyrelatedtopicsthatpubliccommentsaddressandthatshallbeespecially
consideredinthereviewinclude,butarenotnecessarilylimitedto,thefollowing:
o Availablethresholdsrelevanttothepotentialrisksandconsequencesof
roadtrafficcongestion(atgradecrossings),derailment,fire,explosion,
andupsetconditions(includingspillage),intheStudyArea;
o Existingstudiesthatdistinguishamongthecharacteristicsofcoalfuel
oils,orgasolinethatcontributetoorminimizesafetyrisks.
GreenhouseGasEmissionsandClimateEffectsrelatedtopicsthatpublic
commentsaddressandthatshallbeespeciallyconsideredinthereviewinclude,
butarenotnecessarilylimitedto,thefollowing:
o OffgassingofGHGs,includingcarbonmonoxideandmethanefromcoal
storagepiles;
o PotentialforincrementalincreaseofGHGemissionslocallyandglobally
fromstoringcoalintheStudyArea;
o Existinginformationregardinghowburningcoaloverseesandreceiving,
storing,andshippingcoalattheOBOTcouldaffectairpollutionand
globalwarming/sealevelriseforWestOakland;
o QuantifiedincrementalincreaseinGHGemissionsasCO2equivalent;
o Methodand/orcalculationofGHGcontributionfromcoalstoragepiles
atOBOT.
Appropriatethresholdstobeusedinthedeterminationofwhetherthereis
substantialevidencethattheprojectissubstantiallydangerous;
Potentialhealthand/orsafetyrisksassociatedwiththeproposedrailtransport
throughWestOaklandandterminalactivitiesforcoal,fueloils,orgasolineatOBOT
foronboardingtomarinevessels
Task1.4:SummarizeExistingRegulatorySetting
SummarizescreeninglevelssetbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyfor
concentrationsofcoalspecifictraceelementsthatcouldbeingestedindustorvia
theconsumptionofsurfacewaterorproducegrownintheStudyArea.
Identifyexistingcoaldustperformancerequirementsofrelevantentities,
potentiallyincluding:
o FederalRailroadAdministration,BNSFRailway(includingBNSFsload
profiletemplate)6and/orUP;
BNSF,2015.CoalDustFrequentlyAskedQuestions.[http://www.bnsf.com/customers/whatcani
ship/coal/coaldust.html#1]AccessedNovember30,2015.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
o BoardofPortCommissionersofthePortofOakland;
o BAAQMDand/ortheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard;U.S.EPA
o StateWaterResourcesControlBoardand/ortheRegionalWater
QualityControlBoard;and
o OtherCityenvironmentalrequirements.
o 2012ArmyBaseStandardConditionofApproval/Mitigation
MonitoringReportingProgram
Task1.5:CommoditiesCharacterization
AsneededtosupplementthepublicinformationreviewedinTask1.3,Describe
andcomparethecharacteristicsofcoalforexportfromOBOT.
o DescribeandcompareU.S.coaltypesgenerally,andspecificallyUtah
coaltypesbyCountyand/ormine,asrelatedtohealthand/orsafety.
Includeasimplifieddescriptionofchemicalcharacteristicsthat
contributetoorminimizepotentialhumanhealthand/orsafetyeffects,
includingthecoalcompositionandpotentiallyharmfultrace
constituentslikemercury,lead,arsenic,andbariumaswellaspolycyclic
aromatichydrocarbons(PAHs)andotheroffgassesincludingmethane.7
o Describecoaldustasaformofparticulatematter(PM)andexplainhow
itcanbegeneratedduringrailtransport,storageandtransloading
activities.
o Summarizethefactorsaffectingthetotalamountoffugitivecoaldust
generated,8includingthefactorsaffectingthevolumeofcoaldust
releasedduringoffloading,storage,andonboardingtomarinevessel.
Estimatethevolumeofcoaldustreleasedduringeachactivityperday,
monthandyear.
o Describemobilizationandfactorsinfluencingmobilizationofcoaldust
toachieveexposuretohumansviainhalation,ingestionandleaching
intosurfacewaterandgroundwater.
Apotentialreferencetobeevaluatedregardingcoalcharacteristicsincludesthecoaldustanalysisprovided
asAppendixGoftheSurfaceTransportationBoardsanalysisfortheTongueRiverRailroadproject.
Section4(EnvironmentalImpactsAssociatedwithCoalTransportation)oftheU.S.EPAsMay1978
EnvironmentalAssessmentofCoalTransportation(p.59etseq.)willbereviewedtoinformthisdiscussion.
USEPA,1978,EnvironmentalAssessmentofCoalTransportation.EPA600/778081.
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/129807057/9100T7M9]May1978.Section6.3.3.1oftheSurface
TransportationBoardsEIS(p.66etseq.)fortheTongueRiverRailroadProject(andreferencescitedtherein)
alsowillbereviewed.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
o Provideabriefsummaryreviewofexistingstudiesofemission,
dispersion,anddepositionofcoaldustfromrailcarsandprovidea
highleveloverviewofthemethodsthatpriorstudieshaveusedto
evaluatepotentialeffects.9Specificexamplesofconservative
assumptionswillbeidentified.10
o Identifypotentialcoaldustpalliatives(alsoreferredtoassurfactantsor
toppingagents)anddistinguishingcharacteristicsofeach.11
o Reviewsurfactantsandtheireffectsonreducingfugitivecoaldustfrom
opentopcoaltrains.
AsmentionedinTask1.2,describetheeffectsofhandlingcoal,fueloils,and
gasolinethroughtheOBOTallatonce.
Performthesameevaluationasaboveinthissubtask,forfueloils,andgasoline
(i.e.,theotherspecificbulkcommoditiesmostlikelytobehandledthroughOBOT
andthatareaddressedbythe2014OaklandResolution).Certaincommoditiesare
excludedfromthisreviewduetotheirlackofhealthand/orsafetyriskissues(or
lowrisk)and/orregulationbythefireandbuildingcodes.
[Subconsultants,AdelanteConsulting(BarbaraTooleO'Neil);andMRS]
Task1.6:PrepareDraftReport
ESAwillconductthefollowingtaskstopreparetheDraftReport:
o Categorize,synthesize,andsummarizetheinformationgainedand
reviewedthroughTask1.1throughTask1.5,detailedabove;the
categorizationofinformationgainedfromthoseprecedingtasksmay
befurtherrefinedforpurposesoftheDraftReport.
o PrepareaDraftReportcontainingthecategorization,synthesis,
summary,evaluation,andreferencesrecordofthepubliccomments
andotherinformationintheCitypublicrecord.
See,e.g.,Chapter6,CoalDust,oftheEISbeingpreparedbytheSurfaceTransportationBoardfortheTongue
RiverRailroad.TheDraftEISwasissuedforcommentonApril17,2015[http://www.tonguerivereis.com/
draft_eis.html].AsecondextensionofthecommentperiodwasgranteduntilSeptember23,2015.We
presumetheFinalEISisinprogressandmayprovideindependentconfirmationastotheappropriateness
andcompletenessofthescopeofissuestobeconsideredinthisproposedReport.SeealsoKotchenruther
(EPARegion10),2013.FugitiveDustfromCoalTrains:FactorsEffectingEmissions&EstimatingPM2.5.
[http://lar.wsu.edu/nwairquest/docs/201306_meeting/20130606_Kotchenruther_coal_trains.pdf]
10
AnexampleofthisisprovidedinSNCLavalin,2014,onpage131etseq.,althoughwedonotanticipatethat
thereferencedlevelofdetailwouldbeneededorhelpfulinthisproject.
11
ThisdiscussionwouldfurtherdevelopandrefineinformationprovidedinTable38(CompositionofDust
Palliatives)providedinSNCLavalin,2014.HumanHealthRiskAssessment:FraserSurryDocksDirectTransfer
CoalFacilityRevisedFinalReport.July18,2014.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
Task1.7:Revise/PrepareFinalReport(asneeded)/MeetingAttendance
ESAunderstandsthattheCitymaycirculatetheReporttothepublicandproject
proponentforreviewandcomment.Underthistask,ESAwillrevisethefinalizeor
modifytheReport,asneededordirected.Attendanceatone(1)publicmeetingis
assumedtohearpubliccommentontheReport.Preparationofresponsesto
commentsisnotassumed.
Task1.8DetailedScopingandConsultation
ThistaskincludesESAsworkandcommunicationwithCitystafftounderstand
thebackgroundandcontextoftheOBOTproposalrelativetotheDAandthe
Citys2014Resolution,andtoassisttheCityindevelopingthetechnicalaspects
ofascopeofworkpertinenttotheCitydeterminingwhethertheinformationin
itspublicrecordconstitutessubstantialevidenceofsubstantialendangerment
III.PROPOSEDSUBCONSULTANTS
ESAhasidentifiedqualifiedsubconsultantswhowillprovidespecializedexpertiserequiredfor
certaintasksidentifiedinthispreliminaryscope,andreferencedthroughoutthescope.ESA
haspreviousworkingrelationshipswitheachofthesefirmsandexpertanalysts.Adelante
Consulting(BarbaraTooleONeil)andMRSwillfocusonTask1.5(Commodities
Characterization),withassistanceasneededinTask1.3(ReviewPublicInputtoDate).
However,itisanticipatedthatsubconsultantswillprovideconsultationasneededthroughout
theworkandparticipateinothervarioustasksasneeded.
IV.LABORANDCOSTESTIMATE
Table1presentsapreliminarydraftlaborandcostestimatefortheproposedwork.As
discussedwithCitystafftodate,thisprocessandtheproposeddeliverablesarefairlyunique,
andtheactualeffortrequiredcouldvarywidelybasedonthequantity,scopeandnatureof
publicengagementandresponse,aswellastheactualprocessthattheCityundertakes.This
initialestimatefactorsinthisuncertainty,butrepresentsthoughtfulinitialestimatesbasedon
ourunderstandingandinitialreviewofinformationtheCityinitiallyprovidedtoESA.
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
TABLE1PRELIMINARYDRAFTLABORANDCOSTESTIMATE
Task
ESA Hours
Subconsultant
Hours
(Estimated
based on
Average Hourly
Bill Rate)
Total Hours
Total Approximate
Cost
Task1.1:ConfirmOBOTProjectDesign
38
38
$8,219
Task1.2:CharacterizeOBOTActivitiesfor
CoalandOtherHazardousFossil
FuelMaterials
42
42
$8,683
Task1.3:ReviewPublicInputtoDateonArmy
BaseRedevelopmentProject
86
95
$20,459
Task1.4:SummarizeExistingRegulatory
Setting
40
40
$8,302
Task1.5:CommoditiesCharacterization
58
44
102
$23,541
Task1.6:PrepareDraftReport
64
64
$13,596
Task1.7:Revise/PrepareFinalReport(as
Needed)/MeetingAttendance
48
48
$10,578
Task1.8:DetailedScopingandConsultation
65
65
$13,055
441
53
494
$106,433
$1,380
441
53
494
$ 107,813
Subtotal
Direct Expenses (Print/Deliveries)
V.PRELIMINARYDRAFTSCHEDULE
Table2presentsapreliminarydraftscheduleoftheproposedwork,intendedasastarting
pointforrefinementincollaborationwiththeCity.Keyassumptionsarelistedastablenotes
andapplyapproachesandadministrativedraftreviewdurationsthattheCitygenerallyapplies
foritsreviewofcertainenvironmentalreviewprocesses.Itisassumedthatcertaintasksmay
warrantinterimreviewandfeedbackfromtheCity.
(Table2presentedonthefollowingpage.)
10
PUBLICREVIEWDRAFT
CityofOaklandPublicCommentsReviewReport
ScopeofWork
March25,2016
TABLE2PRELIMINARYDRAFTSCHEDULE
Task
Duration
(weeks)
ESACityApproach/ScopeReviewandRevision
ESATeamWorkTasks
4wks
Start
End
1/11/16
3/25/16
4/26/16
5/24/16
Task1.1:ConfirmOBOTProjectDesign
Task1.2:CharacterizeOBOTActivitiesforCoalandOther
HazardousFossilFuelMaterials
Task1.3:ReviewPublicInputtoDateonArmyBaseRedevelopment
Project
Task1.4:SummarizeExistingRegulatorySetting
Task1.5:CommoditiesCharacterization
Task1.6:PrepareDraftReport
CityReview/ESARevision
PublishReport(17daypublicreview)
Task1.7:Revise/PrepareFinalReport
PublicHearing#2b
2.5wksa
5/25/16
6/10/16
6/8/16
6/27/16
Asneeded
July2016
AssumesoneroundofCityreviewandReportclarificationsbyESA.
PublicHearing#1assumedtohaveoccurredinFall2015.
VI.
QUALIFICATIONSANDKEYRESUMES
ResumesofkeyESAtechnicalstaffandsubconsultantsforthisproposedscopeofworkare
providedtotheCityunderseparatecover.
11
CHARLES B. BENNETT
(CHUCK)
Senior Project Manager and
Technical Advisor
EDUCATION
B.S., Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford
University
45 YEARS EXPERIENCE
PUBLICATIONS
Published technical
articles in the fields of
acoustics, wind effects,
particulate transport
and control, quality
control, probabilistic
search methods,
computer-graphics
applications,
mathematical analysis of
probabilistic games, and
radiation phenomena.
Relevant Experience
Digital Microwave Interoperability Project (ECOMM and SVRCS). Project Director.
From 2007 through 2015, Chuck directed and participated in four separate,
sequential environmental reviews, preparing CEQA and NEPA documents and
providing environmental monitoring for the proposed construction of and/or
modifications to the microwave transmission towers and antennas for the Santa
Clara County emergency communications system. This system allows first
responders to improve local incident response times as well as allow the County to
better manage regional incidents. Since the first three projects required both local
and federal approvals, ESA prepared joint CEQA/NEPA Initial Studies and
Environmental Assessments that covered the system as a whole and also analyzed
the impacts at each individual antenna location. The main issues of the project are
biological resources, cultural resources, and public health and safety. The final
Chuck Bennett
Page 2
system upgrade, the 2015 Silicon Valley Regional Communications Sysstem (SVRCS)
Site Upgrade Project, which would facilitate implematation of the new County-wide
700 MHz Public Saftey interoperable communications system, required only CEQA
review and documentation.
Port of Redwood City, Carbon Black Pilot Facility Project IS/MND. Project
Director. Chuck served as Project Director and technical reviewer for analysis of a
pilot plant industrial facility that would use a feedstock of natural gas and electric
power to produce sample quantities of carbon black. Carbon black is used as a
reinforcing agent in nearly all black rubber and plastic products. The proposed
project would be located on approximately 0.6 acres at the Port of Redwood City.
Key environmental topics analyzed in the IS/MND included hazards and hazardous
materials and air quality. The Port approved the project in February 2014.
Chuck Bennett
Page 3
Although there was not enough information to evaluate all 2014 LRDP proposals at
the project-level, the analyses of many of the 2014 LRDP proposals at the projectlevel is intended to permit project approval following certification of the 2014 LRDP
EIR by the Regents of the University of California.
UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Subsequent EIR. Project Manager. Chuck is
managing an EIR for a proposed integrated medical facility to serve children,
women and cancer patients in Mission Bay, near its existing 43-acre biomedical
campus. The project would be undertaken in two major phases. The LRDP
Phase would construct a 979,000-gross-square-foot, 289-bed Medical Center on
the east parcel of the project site and structured and surface parking on the west
parcel. To ensure rapid access to UCSFs specialized level of care for critically ill
children and pregnant women, a helipad on the northernmost portion of the
Medical Center campus would be constructed to accommodate helicopter
transport. The Future Phase (second phase) would provide additional 808,000
gsf of Medical Center development, replacing the surface parking on the west
parcel. This Subsequent EIR tiers off of a previous EIR for UCSFs Hospital
Replacement Program that was also prepared by ESA.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Building 51 and Bevatron Demolition
Project EIR/EA, Alameda County, CA. Project Manager. Chuck managed the EIR
and EA for the Building 51 and Bevatron Demolition Project at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, which included evaluation of human health risks. Major
environmental issues analyzed in the EIR/EA include the mitigation of significant
impacts to historic resources, traffic and circulation associated with hauling of
demolition materials through the city of Berkeley, handling and disposal of
hazardous and radioactive materials, noise, air quality, public health and safety,
visual quality and land use and planning. The proposed project would dismantle
and remove the Bevatron particle accelerator, a facility listed on the National
Register of Historic Places for its contribution to the development of the country's
atomic energy program in the 1950s, and would demolish Building 51, which
houses the Bevatron.
UC Davis Long Range Development Plan EIR Sections & Other Projects. Project
Manager. Prepared the Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials analyses for
the UC Davis LRDP. He also directed the preparation of EIRs for UC Davis on a new
Environmental Service (HazMat) Facility and a new Contained Research
(Biohazard Level 3) Facility on the western portion of the campus. The evaluation
focused on the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials at the
Environmental Service Facility and focused on the operation of Biohazard Level 3
laboratories and contained greenhouses at the Contained Research Facility. In
the same time frame, he directed preparation of various technical studies and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory.
UC San Francisco Revised Laurel Heights Plan EIR. Health Risk Analyst. Chuck
directed and served as lead technical investigator on two separate studies to
assess the effects of exhaust emissions from planned University of California, San
Francisco animal care and biomedical research facilities at each of the existing
UCSF Parnassus and at the new UCSF Mission Bay campuses. The effort included
work to characterize the dilution of toxics in the exhaust stack flows and
determine the risks that would result. Both efforts involved working with
Chuck Bennett
Page 4
Chuck Bennett
Page 5
Refinery Projects
Contra Costa County, Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project EIR. Project
Director. ESA prepared an EIR for a propane recovery project at Phillips 66s
refinery in the community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County. The project would
modify existing facilities in order to recover propane from refinery fuel gas.
Propane would be stored in new storage vessels for transport via rail. A new rail
loading rack and rail spurs also would be constructed as part of the project. Cory
evaluated the projects potential impacts on public services and utilities,
population and housing, and recreation.
Valero Benicia Refinerys Improvement Project EIR City of Benicia, CA. Project
Manager. This controversial $140 million, 7-year project included a number of
actions to improve the overall efficiency of the refinery, to increase throughput and
to enable the refinery to process lower-cost feed stocks. The study examined all
aspects of the project and traced their impacts, both within the City of Benicia and
over the broader Bay Area region. As the water supply in the City is limited and
rationing can occur in dry years, water use by the Refinery is of great public concern.
ESA developed appropriate mitigations for the significant impacts of the project.
Substantive answers were prepared to all of the several hundred technical
comments received from the public on the published Draft. The Final document
was certified in late 2002. Project opponents appealed, but dropped the appeal
after intense direct negotiations between the City, Refinery and the Appellants.
ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project EIR. Project
Manager. Chuck is managing the preparation of an EIR and assisting the Community
Development Department of Contra Costa County with CEQA compliance for the
proposed Clean Fuels Expansion Project (CFEP) at the ConocoPhillips Rodeo
Refinery. The CFEP would add new facilities and modify existing facilities to
produce additional clean fuels. The Refinery would use Heavy Gas Oil that is
produced at the Refinery, but is currently being sold into the HGO and fuel markets,
to produce cleaner-burning gasoline and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuels targeted for
the California market. In addition to increasing cleaner-burning gasoline
production, the CFEP would increase the production of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuels.
The CFEP includes the construction of a new hydrogen plant that would produce
additional hydrogen to be used in the production of additional fuel. The hydrogen
plant would be constructed and operated by a third party (Air Liquide) on a
designated site within the Refinery. Specific environmental project concerns are the
potential impacts to air quality, noise, public safety and public health, and water
quality.
ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and Strategic Modernization Project
EIR, Contra Costa County, CA. Project Manager. Chuck managed a study to
examine the effects of a series of improvements proposed at the ConocoPhillips
Refinery at Rodeo, CA. The project would give the Refinery the capability to produce
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel to meet the EPAs January 2006 deadline, increase
production capacity of the refinery and improve the ability to process low-cost high
sulfur crude oils. Following a review of the projects complex elements, the study
traced the chain of their potential environmental impacts, including air quality,
Chuck Bennett
Page 6
water quality, traffic, public health and public safety effects, within the local area
and throughout the broader region. The study required careful technical analysis to
assess the direct and the indirect impacts that could result from constructing and
operating the project. In response to the published Draft, nearly 300 comment
letters were received. Although over 90% supported the project, more than 300
questions and technical comments required substantive answers. The draft of the
Final document has been prepared and awaits County approval.
Ultramar Golden Eagle Refinerys Second Phase Clean Fuels Project EIR
Addendum, Contra Costa County, CA. Project Manager. Chuck managed the
preparation of an Addendum to the existing EIR. The study first involved careful and
detailed technical work to correctly identify the projects many complex process
unit elements and distinguish them from other on-going (cumulative) projects at
the Martinez refinery. The Countys approval of the project was appealed by project
opponents. ESA provided substantial direct assistance to the County in preparing
substantive answers and rebuttals to the several hundred technical comments,
claims and assertions of the appellants. The County subsequently upheld the
approval of the refinerys proposed modification program.
Richmond Refinery Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Upgrade. Project
Manager. Directed all of the day-to-day work, for the EIR (certified in 1994) for the
Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Upgrade project at the Richmond
Refinery. The EIR involved extensive technical analysis to identify the impacts,
including air quality, traffic, fiscal, health and safety and accident effects, that could
result from the complex $750 million project to produce the new Clean Fuels and to
upgrade major portions of the refinery to improve operating efficiency.
Chuck Bennett
Page 7
Telecommunications
In over 30 years of work involving communications facilities, he commonly
addresses issues of health effects, visual impact, and alternate site location and
configuration. He advised the City of San Jose in evaluating potential EMF at a city
park proposed within the right-of-way of a 115 kV transmission line; and, for a
neighborhood advisory council, he prepared a third-party review of EMR
materials presented by LA Cellular on a proposed mobile telephone cell site.
Communications Hill Technical Study, San Jose, CA. Mr. Bennett evaluated the
EMR exposures that would result in residences in the Communications Hill
development in San Jose, which was proposed adjacent to microwave and
communications antennas on the site. The health issues related to developing
housing were addressed by comparing the computed exposures for residents with
the existing national exposure standards.
Skynet Earth Station Satellite Dish, Alameda County, CA. Project Director.
Mr. Bennett prepared an environmental assessment for AT&T's 13-meter Skynet
Earth Station satellite dish at Altamont Pass. The report was prepared to satisfy
FCC requirements regarding the installation of antennas with a diameter greater
than 30 feet. ESA staff investigated the geology and soils of the project area, and
calculated microwave radiation levels. The earth station broadcasts at 6 GHz with
an average power of 500 watts. The isolation of the site precluded concern for
EMR exposures to the stations power of 500 watts.
Gibraltar Peak Communications Site EIR. Technical Task Leader and Senior
Technical Reviewer. Provided the public health and safety analysis for the
Gibraltar Peak Communications Site EIR, which included radiofrequency
radiation modeling performed by Dr. Arthur W. Guy of the University of
Washington Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory and on-site existing
radiofrequency radiation level measurements by Dr. Bruce B. Lusignan of
Chuck Bennett
Page 8
Chuck Bennett
Page 9
Monterey, and Ventura Counties, as well as more than 100 cell sites in the nine
Bay Area counties over a four-year period.
PRIVILEGED&CONFIDENTIAL
CityofOaklandCoalbyRailEffectsReview
DraftApproachandPreliminaryScopeofWork
BlankPage
AdministrativeDraftforWorkingandDiscussionPurposesOnly
SubjecttoRevision
VICTORIA EVANS
Principal Associate and Project
Leader
EDUCATION
M.S., Natural Resource
Policy and
Administration,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
B.S., Natural Resource
Management, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
35 YEARS EXPERIENCE
CERTIFICATIONS/
REGISTRATION
Verifier. GHG
Compliance Offset
Projects, California Air
Resources Board, 2012.
Project Management
Certification, PMI, 2012.
Lead Certifier Trained,
Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, California
Climate Action Registry,
2006.
Mediator Certification,
State of California, 2002.
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
Board Member, Air &
Waste Management
Association
Golden West Section,
2008-present
Mother Lode Chapter,
20072008
Advisor, UC Davis
Student Chapter,
A&WMA, 2006-07
Relevant Experience
Prior to Joining ESA
Environmental and Climate Change Impacts of Energy and Fuel Projects
Environmental Impact Analyses, Multiple Energy Projects, U.S. Technical
Advisor. Early in her career Ms. Evans performed reviews to determine natural
resource impacts/conflicts in federal EISs for multiple power generating projects
that overall totaled over 25,000 Mw. Representative types of energy projects
include coal, oil and nuclear power plants; coal processing facilities; transmission
lines; LNG terminals; oil terminals; and boiler fuel conversions. Corridor-type
projects included slurry and natural gas pipelines.
Climate Risk Analysis (Climate Impacts and Adaptation), Keystone XL
Pipeline, Supplemental FEIS (NEPA), U.S. Department of State, US. Task Lead.
Ms. Evans led staff to conduct a high level assessment of the impacts of climate
change upon the construction and operation along the route of the proposed
Keystone Pipeline in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. She also identified
mitigation for those projected impacts and developed responses to public
comments.
GHG Emissions Analysis, Federal Loan Application and Pre-EIS. Leucadia
Corp. (1) Coal Gasification Plant, Indiana, (2). Petroleum Coke Gasification
Plant, Mississippi. Task Lead. Ms. Evans developed spreadsheet models to
calculate GHG emissions and evaluated impacts of each proposed solid fossil fuel
to syngas facility, including sequestration by injection of CO2 emissions into local
Victoria Evans
Page 2
AWARDS
Guest Lecturer, Green
MBA Program,
Dominican University.
2013
Jack Horton Fellowship,
SEAS-Seminars and
Environmental Arts and
Sciences, June 1984
Special Achievement
Award, from Assistant
Secretary of the
Department of the
Interior, December 1980,
National Park Service
Victoria Evans
Page 3
Victoria Evans
Page 4
TIM RIMPO
Program Manager Air Quality
EDUCATION
M.S., Economics (Natural
Resource & Environmental
Specialization), Colorado
State University, Fort
Collins
B.A., Economics,
University of Virginia,
Charlottesville
30 YEARS EXPERIENCE
SPECIALIZED TRAINING
Hot Spots Analysis
Reporting Program
(HARP) Model Training,
2006
Air Permitting, 2015
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
Air & Waste Management
Association Mother Lode
Chapter
Association of
Environmental
Professionals Superior
Chapter
Tim Rimpo has 30 years of experience evaluating air quality and greenhouse gas
impacts for public and private clients. His areas of expertise include point-, area-,
and mobile-source air quality impact studies; and air permitting. Tims
experience includes working with clients to obtain greenhouse gas (GHG) credits,
renewable energy credits, and criteria pollutant emission offsets.
Relevant Experience
Health Risk Guidance for Crematories City of Oakland, CA. Project Manager.
Tim prepared a white paper on air quality impacts and health risks associated
with crematory operations. The report was prepared for the City of Oaklands
planning staff and was used by members of the Citys Planning Commission to
help evaluate zoning alternatives for crematories.
Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project REIR, Contra Costa County, CA.
Air Quality and Health Risk Analyst. The Propane Recovery Project (proposed
Project) would modify existing facilities and add new facilities to recover propane
from refinery fuel gas (RFG) and Hydrogen Plant feed gas and then ship it by rail
for sale. The proposed Project would involve hydrotreating a portion of the RFG, a
process that would reduce the amount of sulfur in the fuel gas, and because fuel
gas is now burned to produce heat for Refinery processes, ultimately would
reduce the Refinerys sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions to the atmosphere. Tim
analyzed the health risk impacts of the project on the community and nearby
sensitive residences.
Marine Highways Project - Port of Stockton. Stockton, CA. Project Manager.
The Marine Highways project would replace existing truck transport of goods
between the Ports of Oakland and Stockton with container-on-barge service. Tim
prepared an air quality report that estimated air emissions resulting from existing
truck transport, from the proposed container-on-barge system, and the net
change in emissions between the two. Criteria pollutant and GHG emissions were
estimated using the EMFAC and OFFROAD models, and were subdivided into
those that would occur within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD). The air quality benefits of this project were then used by the Port of
Stockton to justify the payment of air pollution grant monies by SJVAPCD and
BAAQMD. Those funds were used by the Port to purchase new cranes.
Santa Cruz Memorial Crematory Health Risk Assessment City of Santa Cruz,
CA. Project Manager. Tim managed the preparation of a health risk assessment
that evaluated the potential risks from an existing crematorium to proposed
condominiums proposed for the adjacent land parcel.
San Jos/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility Capitol Improvement
Project, San Jos, CA. Air Permitting Lead. The San Jos/Santa Clara Regional
Tim Rimpo
Page 2
Tim Rimpo
Page 3
proposed new wineries and winery expansion projects in Sonoma County. These
have included Paradise Vineyards Winery, Kistler Vineyards, Twin Oaks Winery,
Windsor Oaks Winery, and the Best Family Winery. For several of these projects,
Tim worked with emission trading companies to purchase GHG offsets to offset
the increase in winery GHG emissions.
Solano County Power PlantsPanda Energy. Solano County, CA. Project
Manager. Tim managed the preparation of environmental documents and air
permits for three simple-cycle peaking power plants (49.7 megawatts [MW] each)
proposed for Solano County. Tim worked closely with the local air district to
ensure that the best available control technology (BACT) (selective catalytic
reduction with ammonia injection) was selected, emission offsets were obtained,
and that the air quality modeling was conducted correctly.
Air Permitting Support Consolidated Oil and Transport Company Asphalt
Terminal. Port of Stockton. Project Manager. Tim managed preparation of the
air permit and CEQA documents for a proposed liquefied asphalt terminal that
included a large boiler and cogeneration facility. Tim worked closely with the
applicant to identify best available control technology and to purchase emission
offsets required for this project. Tim also prepared a health risk assessment that
evaluated project related increases in health effects to residences living near the
Port of Stockton.
Kiefer Landfill Expansion Project Supplemental Draft EIR - Sacramento
County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. Sacramento,
CA. Air Quality Technical Lead. Tim prepared an air analysis for expansion of the
Sacramento Keifer Landfill designed as a Class III sanitary landfill and is located
approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of Sacramento. The air analysis
included an evaluation of dust and odors on nearby residents, and an estimate of
the increase in vehicle and landfill gas emissions.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan Health Risk Assessment, California Department
of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA. Project Manager. Tim managed
preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) for the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, which would involve transporting water by tunnel and canal from the
Sacramento River Basin to the south Delta for export to the San Joaquin Valley
and the South Coast area. The HRA, which focused on construction emissions,
used the AERMOD dispersion model to estimate pollutant concentrations at
sensitive receptors. Tim also used the Hotspots Analysis Reporting Program
(HARP) program to calculate health risks associated with those concentrations.
The analysis focused on the chronic and carcinogenic health risks resulting from
diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5.
Central Valley Natural Gas Storage Project - Nicor, Inc. Princeton, CA. Air
Quality Technical Lead. Tim prepared an air quality evaluation and air permit
applications for a proposed underground natural gas storage facility located in
Colusa County. The analysis included an evaluation of the projects construction
and operational emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. A health risk
assessment focused on natural gas combustion by-products. The air analysis
focused on emissions from well drilling, from natural gas compressors, and from
the projects glycol dehydration system.
Tim Rimpo
Page 4
CORY BARRINGHAUS
Managing Associate
10 YEARS EXPERIENCE
Cory has more than 10 years of experience as an environmental and land use
planner and is responsible for the preparation of environmental and planning
documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He has provided project management
support and prepared technical analyses for numerous energy projects as well as
residential, commercial, mixed-use, and institutional developments. Cory has
technical expertise in the areas of land use, zoning and plan consistency,
aesthetics, public services, and utilities. He has also prepared several technical
analyses regarding the potential effects of wind and shadow.
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
Relevant Experience
EDUCATION
Master of Urban
Planning, University of
Illinois
B.A., Political Science &
International Studies,
Washington University
American Planning
Association
Association of
Environmental
Professionals
City of Benicia, Valero Crude by Rail Project EIR. Deputy Project Manager. ESA
prepared an EIR for Valeros Benicia oil refinery to evaluate the potential impacts
of changes in crude oil importation at the refinery. The project would allow the
refinery to receive crude oil shipments via rail, which would result in a
corresponding reduction in crude oil deliveries by marine vessels. Approximately
70,000 barrels per day of crude oil would be delivered by up to 100 railcars. Cory
served as the Deputy Project Manager and also evaluated the projects potential
impacts on land use, public services and utilities, population and housing, and
recreation. The Final EIR was published on January 5, 2016.
Port of Redwood City, Wharves 1 and 2 Redevelopment Project Supplemental
EIR. Project Manager. Cory is serving as Project Manager for a Supplemental EIR
that is evaluating Phase 2 of the project, which was previously analyzed on a
programmatic level in 2010. Phase 2 will analyze an increase in throughput of
approximately 900,000 metric tons of sand and gravel aggregates beyond what
was analyzed in the 2010 EIR. The project will also expand operations to 24-hours
per day.
Port of Redwood City, Carbon Black Pilot Facility Project IS/MND. Project
Manager. Cory served as Project Manager and primary author for analysis of a
pilot plant industrial facility that would utilize natural gas and electricity to
produce sample quantities of carbon black. Carbon black is a material that is
used as a reinforcing agent in nearly all black rubber and plastic products. The
proposed project would be located on approximately 0.6 acres at the Port of
Redwood City. Key environmental topics analyzed in the IS/MND included hazards
and hazardous materials and air quality. The Port approved the project in
February 2014.
City of Oakland, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Seismic Upgrade and
Master Plan EIR. Deputy Project Manager. Cory was the Deputy Project Manager
for a proposed seismic upgrade and master plan of the Alta Bates Summit Medical
Center campus in Oakland. The project is intended to provide a long-term vision
Cory Barringhaus
Page 2
for the campus in order to meet hospital and community needs, as well as to
comply with state seismic safety requirements of Senate Bill 1953. The project
included demolition of existing buildings, followed by construction of a new
230,000 sq. ft. (11-story) acute care hospital plus a new parking garage. Future
phases include longer-term campus-wide improvements such as a new medical
office building, new Samuel Merritt University classroom building, fitness center,
and closure of a portion of Summit Street to create a new campus plaza.
City of Oakland, Fruitvale Transit Village, Phase II Environmental
Assessment. Project Manager. Cory served as Project Manager for the
Environmental Assessment for Phase II of the project. ESA prepared a joint
IS/MND and Environmental Assessment for the Fruitvale Transit Village Project at
the Fruitvale BART station in Oakland for the nonprofit Spanish Speaking Unity
Council. ESA also prepared a Focused EIR for the second phase of the project,
which includes 275 transit-oriented multi-family residential units, a clinic and
child care center, and structured parking facility.
San Joaquin County, Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project EIR.
Deputy Project Manager. Cory authored sections of the EIR and served as Deputy
Project Manager. ESA prepared an EIR for the expansion of the existing Union
Pacific Intermodal Facility. The project site is located in unincorporated San
Joaquin County, between the cities of Lathrop and Manteca. The project would
expand the existing capacity of the facility from 270,000 cargo container transfers
(lifts) per year to 730,000 lifts per year. The project would include four new
support railroad tracks, three new working tracks, and the lengthening of two
existing working tracks. This expansion would provide enough capacity for up to
21 locomotives to be staged onsite compared to the current capacity of four
locomotives.
Contra Costa County, Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan EIR. Deputy Project
Manager. Cory managed the Response to Comments/Final EIR for the proposed
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan EIR. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to
revitalize the Bay Point waterfront area by developing a full-scale marina with
related commercial/support uses, medium-density housing, interconnected open
space and pedestrian walkways, and natural open space. The Strategic Plan
would also require an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan to
change both the urban limit line and the land use designations for some portions
of the project site.
Contra Costa County, Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project EIR. Technical
Analyst. ESA prepared an EIR for a propane recovery project at Phillips 66s
refinery in the community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County. The project would
modify existing facilities in order to recover propane from refinery fuel gas.
Propane would be stored in new storage vessels for transport via rail. A new rail
loading rack and rail spurs also would be constructed as part of the project. Cory
evaluated the projects potential impacts on public services and utilities,
population and housing, and recreation.
City of Richmond, Chevron Refinery Renewal Project EIR. Technical Analyst.
Cory assisted in the preparation of the Responses to Comments for the Final EIR.
ESA prepared an EIR for the proposed renewal project at Chevrons refinery in the
City of Richmond. Principal components of the project included replacing the
hydrogen plant, reformer, and power plant; improving hydrogen purity; and
replacing or upgrading other ancillary equipment.
JANNA SCOTT, JD
Program Manager NEPA/CEQA
Specialist
EDUCATION
J.D. Southern Methodist
University School of Law
B.A. Southern Methodist
University Cum laude
20 YEARS EXPERIENCE
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
Member, American Bar
Association: Endangered
Species, Forest
Resources and Marine
Resources Committees
of the Environment,
Energy and Resources
Section.
Member, State Bar of
California:
Environmental Law and
Real Property Law
Sections
Member, San Francisco
Bar Association:
Environmental Law
Section
Janna brings a keen eye to the environmental review process, blending her legal
expertise and project management skills to manage large-scale, complex
renewable energy and natural resource projects; coordinate preparation of
Environmental Impact Reports, Environmental Impact Statements, and other
documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to fulfill agency requirements and
applicant needs accurately and promptly. Janna is an expert on CEQA and NEPA,
and also is familiar with the right-of-way requirements of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA), and climate change and agricultural land conversion
issues, as well as preparing for, participating in, and avoiding land use and
environmental litigation. As a practicing attorney with 10 years experience,
Janna honed her expertise in these areas and now applies her knowledge to serve
federal, state, and local agencies; utilities (including utility service providers and
developers of electric generating plants, transmission line extensions, and
wireless telecommunications infrastructure), commercial and residential
developers, and mining concerns.
Relevant Experience
City of Benicia, Valero Benicia Refinery, Crude by Rail Revised Draft EIR and
Final EIR, Benicia, CA. Project Manager. Janna coordinated closely with the City
and managed ESAs environmental resource experts to prepare a Revised Draft
and Final EIR primarily to consider rail-travel related CEQA effects of transporting
crude oil from North American points of origin to the State border, the Roseville
Rail Yard, and on into the Refinery. Key issues related to the practical application
of CEQAs requirements to identify potential significant project effects and
mitigation measures that could, if implemented, reduce the severity of those
effects below established thresholds in a federally preempted area (i.e.,
regulation of the railroads) as well as beyond the State border absent a NEPA
component. The Final EIR was issued January 5, 2016.
California State Coastal Conservancy, Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Los Angeles, California. Project Manager. Janna is managing ESAs resource
experts and coordinating closely with a multi-agency project management team
to prepare an EIS/EIR to evaluate beneficial and other effects of restoring
wetlands and related ecological functions within the Ballona Reserve. The
wetlands, now reduced to 577 acres, once occupied a 2,000-acre expanse of
critical coastal habitat and included some of the most diverse wetland habitat
types in the Los Angeles Basin due to the presence of both freshwater and
saltwater environments. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
Janna Scott, JD
Page 2
which manages the Reserve, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW), which operates and maintains the improved Ballona Creek channel
and levees within the Reserve, are proposing a large-scale restoration that would
restore, enhance, and establish native coastal wetland and upland habitats
within the Reserve and require incidental work on adjacent properties, including
the relocation of natural gas wells owned and operated by the Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Key issues relate to hydrology and water
quality, biological resources, cultural resources and restoration-period related
traffic on area roads. Publication of the Draft EIS/EIR is expected in summer 2016.
California Public Utilities Commission, California American Water Company
(CalAm), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project EIR/EIS, Monterey, CA.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Janna is serving in NEPA coordination/project
management support capacity for the transition of a published Draft EIR into a
joint EIS/EIR for the proposed replacement of existing CalAm water supplies that
have been constrained by legal decisions affecting diversions from the Carmel
River and pumping from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Primary project
elements include a seawater intake system comprised of subsurface slant wells
along the coast, a desalination plant, aquifer storage and recovery facilities, and
over 20 miles of conveyance pipelines and associated infrastructure. The Draft EIR
was published April 30, 2015. Publication of a joint EIR/EIS is expected in 2016.
Bureau of Land Management, San Bernardino County, Bechtel Development
Company, Inc., Soda Mountain Solar Project PA/EIS/EIR, San Bernardino
County, CA. Project Director. Janna coordinated closely with ESAs Project
Manager, the NEPA and CEQA lead agencies, and the Applicant team to prepare a
Plan Amendment (PA)/ EIS/ EIR under the Federal Land Policy Management Act
(FLPMA), NEPA, and CEQA, respectively, for a 350-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic
(PV) solar power plant and related infrastructure to be constructed, operated,
maintained and decommissioned within an 4,179-acre right-of-way on BLM
administered public lands. County approval of well permits also will be required.
Key considerations relate to coordination with the National Park Service and
other stakeholders, groundwater, site drainage, biological resources, and
aesthetics. The Proposed PA, Final EIS/EIR was issued June 4, 2015.
First Solar, Inc., BLM Nevada Playa Solar Project Environmental Assessment
and Decision Record, Clarke County, NV. Project Manager. Janna managed
ESAs resource experts to develop (and complete within 6 months) a projectspecific Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of developing an
up-to 200 MW solar PV project on approximately 1,710 acres within Zones 2, 3,
and 4 of the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) as part of the BLMs streamlined
permitting process under the Western Solar Plan and related programmatic EIS.
Key environmental considerations for the EA included integration of the
mitigation standards set forth in the Western Solar Plan and the April 2014
Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, and coordination
with BLM and two other applicant teams regarding the analysis of proposals to
develop the remaining area within the Dry Lake SEZ. The Decision Record for the
Playa Solar Project, signed May 27, 2015, was among the first project-specific
approvals granted pursuant to the Western Solar Plan.
Page 1
3. Western Bituminous Coal that other Fuel, B. Toole ONeil, J. Quik, 20 Symposium on
Western Fuels International Conference on Lignite, Brown and Sub-Bituminous Coals,
Denver CO. Oct. 22-24, 2006
th
4. Mercury in U.S. Coal and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, B. Toole ONeil, 8 International
Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant, Madison WI, Aug. 7, 2006.
5. Pre-Combustion Management as Part of a Long Term Mercury Compliance Plan, Barbara
Toole ONeil, Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference and Meeting,
June, 2006.
6. Mercury in US Coal and the US EPA Clean Air Mercury, B. Toole ONeil, J. Quick, D.
Akers, Oil, Gas and Energy Law Intelligence, Vol. 3, Issue 3, October, 2005
7. Compliance Planning for Mercury Control An Integrated Approach, D.J. OConnor
(EPRI), B. Toole ONeil, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, V. 37, No. 7,
Oct. 16, 2005
8. Mercury in Coal - Pre-combustion Management Options for Emission Control, B. Toole
ONeil, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, V. 37, No. 7, Oct. 16, 2005
9. The Potential of Pre-Combustion Management as Part of a Mercury Compliance Plan, B.
Toole ONeil, D.J. OConnor, for Society of Mining Engineering Annual Meeting, March 2,
2005.
10. Coal as an Organic Rock, B. Toole ONeil, EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide,
http://www .epri.com, 2000.
11. Status Report: Mercury in the Environment, J. Yager, B. Toole ONeil, G. Offen, L. Levin,
P. Chu, U.S. EPA Public Meeting on Utility Air Toxics Regulatory Determination, 2000.
12. The Cost and Effectiveness of Coal Cleaning for Control of Mercury Emissions, D.J.
Akers, B. Toole ONeil, Proceedings: EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant
Control Symposium, EPRI TR-113187, 1999.
13. Mineral Forms of Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Ash - A Summary, B. Toole ONeil,
G.A. Watkins, R. Myhre, EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide, http://www.epri.com, 1999.
14. Sampling and Analytical Methods - A Summary, R. Wetherold, D. Orr, B. Toole ONeil,
EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide, http://www .epri.com, 1999.
15. Wet/Dry Coal Basis for EFH Method, R. Wetherold, B. Toole ONeil, EPRI TRI Technical
Resource Guide, http://www.epri.com, 1999.
16. A Comparison of Methods for Estimating Power Plant Trace Species Emissions, B. Toole
ONeil, E.S. Rubin, R. Wetherold, EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide,
http://www.epri.com, 1999.
17. TVA Uses EPRIs PISCES Model to Estimate Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Releases, B. Toole ONeil, EPRI Innovators, EPRI IN-1 12086, 1999.
18. PISCES: Power Plant Chemical Assessment Model - Version 2.1, Volume 1-2, B. Toole
Page 2
Page 3
mrs
Mr. Peirson is a Principal of MRS. Before joining MRS, he was a Director in Arthur D. Littles
Environmental Health & Safety Practice and manager of their Santa Barbara and Ventura,
California, offices. For more than 30 years, Mr. Peirson has been extensively involved in
preparing CEQA documents for various state and local agencies and in preparing safety and
risk assessments for oil and gas operations.
Mr. Peirson has been involved CEQA permitting activities since 1983. He has participated in
the preparation and CEQA permitting of over 60 major projects within California. Most of these
projects have been related to oil and gas development activities.
Mr. Peirson has provided more than 700 hours of testimony to local and state decision makers
which have included Planning Commissions, Boards of Supervisors, the State Lands
Commission and the California Coastal Commission. He also has extensive experience in
working with local and state government staff in developing permit conditions and findings
associated with development projects.
For the past 20 years, Mr. Peirson also has been involve in conducting environmental, health
and safety studies for refineries and other oil and gas facilities. He has conducted safety audits
at a number of refineries in California.
Mr. Peirson received his B.A. (1978) in Mathematics from Hartwick College with a minor in
chemistry. He also completed advanced studies in Chemical Engineering from Columbia
University (1979).
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
The professional experience section covers three major topics. The first is CEQA related
assignments, and the second is refinery experience, and the third is safety and risk projects.
CEQA Projects
Mr. Peirson is currently the project manager for the Phillips 66 Rail Spur Project
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that is being prepared for the County of San Luis
Obispo. This project is proposed crude by rail project that would deliver up to five trains
per week of North American crude to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery. This project
involves the evaluation of the impacts at both the Santa Maria Refinery as well as long the
mainline rail routes. Mr. Peirson has been responsible for overseeing the development of
the EIR as well as one of the principal investigators for the hazards and hazardous materials
section of the EIR. This included the development of a quantitative risk assessment (QRA)
for the rail operations at the refinery as well as long the mainline rail routes.
Mr. Peirson was the project manager for the Chevron Tank Farm EIR. This was a joint
project between San Luis Obispo County and City and involves the remediation and future
Page |1
mrs
development of the Chevron Tank Farm property located just north of the San Luis Obispo
Regional Airport. Mr. Peirson oversaw a team of CEQA experts in the development of the
EIR. The project has involved working closely with various responsible agencies
(RWQCB, County Environmental Health, SLOAPCD, CDFW, USFWS) to define the
extent of the remediation and the possible types of developments that could occur at the
site. One of the key challenges of this project has been the development of possible land
use that could occur at the site for the proposed zoning. Mr. Peirson worked with the
Applicant and the City and County to develop a wide range of possible land uses that
would be consistent with the County General Plan, the City Airport Area Specific Plan, and
the Airport Land Use Plan.
Mr. Peirson is currently the project manager for the Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation
Environmental Monitoring Project. He has been managing this ongoing project since 1998.
Mr. Peirson oversees a team of biologists and engineers who have developed strong
working relationships with the field personnel at the Guadalupe site, as well as with the
regulatory staff who are responsible for overseeing the remediation and abandonment
activities. Mr. Peirson stays in close contact with staff from the California Coastal
Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Peirson was project manager for the Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation and
Abandonment EIR. This EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with the
remediation and abandonment of the Guadalupe Oil Field by Unocal. This highly
environmentally sensitive site covers approximately 3,000 acres within the GuadalupeNipomo Dunes system. This highly complex project assessed a number of remediation
technologies and assessed their impacts and effectiveness on various spill locations with
diverse characteristics. The project, which lasted over two years, involved extensive
onshore and offshore field work. The project also included a six-month remedial
investigation of the extent of the contamination. The site contains more than 90 petroleum
plumes. The project involved over 100 staff members working in 18 different
environmental issue areas.
Mr. Peirson was the project manager for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Facility EIR, which was prepared for San Luis Obispo County. This very
controversial project involved the evaluation of the impacts associated with the long-term
storage of nuclear waste at the Diablo Canyon site. This was the first EIR prepared in
California for a nuclear facility. The major areas of concern in the EIR were air quality,
public health, risk of upset and terrorism.
Mr. Peirson was the permitting manager for Cook Hill Properties who was proposing the
development of 1,200 homes and commercial development on a 480 oil field site. Mr.
Peirson was responsible for overseeing the development of all of the EIR technical reports.
This has involved working closely with various Federal, State and local agencies. The
project focused on the development of a Specific Plan that would included ongoing oil
Page |2
mrs
Mr. Peirson was project manager for the County of Los Angeles covering the development
of a Community Standards District (CSD) for the Baldwin Hills Oil Field. The project
involved the evaluation of a hypothetical development scenario to determine the level of
impacts and associated mitigation measures. The mitigation measures were then used to
develop a CSD, which has served to regulate ongoing development within the Boundaries
of the CSD. Mr. Peirson was responsible for managing the preparation of the EIR and for
drafting the CSD provisions. This project required working closely with the landowners,
and concerned citizens in the preparation of the EIR and the CSD.
Mr. Peirson was project manager for the City of Carpinterias Consolidation of Pitas Point
and Carpinteria Gas Odorant Station EIR. This project would consolidate two existing
facilities by dismantling and removing the odorant equipment at the Carpinteria Odorant
Station, constructing a new natural gas pipeline, and installing new equipment at the Pitas
Point Odorant Station. Although the project would result in reduced public health and
safety impacts, reduced air emissions, and upgraded equipment, it generated significant
public controversy due to the proximity of residential and public use areas.
Mr. Peirson was project manager for Santa Barbara Countys Tranquillon Ridge Oil and
Gas Development Project, LOGP Produced Water Treatment System Project, and Sisquoc
Pipeline Bi-Directional Flow Project EIR.
This complicated EIR assessed the
environmental impacts associated with three different but interrelated projects proposed by
three applicants. The proposed Tranquillon Ridge Project would involve the development
of oil and gas wells in a proposed State Tidelands Lease from Platform Irene, which is in
Federal Waters and is currently used to develop and produce the Point Pedernales Field.
This EIR involved a wide range of alternatives for oil development, pipeline replacement,
processing facility location, and drill mud/cuttings disposal.
Mr. Peirson was the project manager of the City of Carpinterias Paredon Project EIR. This
project involved the construction and operation of an oil and gas development project in
close proximity to local neighborhoods and the California coast. Major issues of concern
were noise, air quality, hazards and aesthetics. For the hazards portion of the EIR a QRA
was developed to estimate the risk to local populations for the proposed development. This
project involved close cooperation with the State Lands Commission and the California
Coastal Commission, as well as the local neighbors who would be affected by the proposed
project.
Mr. Peirson was the project manager of the Molino Gas Development Project EIR. This
project was the first project approved for the development of offshore reserves using an
onshore drilling location. The project involved assessing the environmental impacts of the
development, and the development of new land use and coastal development policies
covering onshore development of offshore oil and gas reserves.
Page |3
mrs
Mr. Peirson was a project manager for the Chevron Point Arguello Field EIR/EIS which
evaluated the environmental impacts of three offshore oil and gas platforms, oil and gas
pipelines, and a large oil and gas processing facility.
Mr. Peirson was the program manager for the Chevron Point Arguello Field Q-6
Supplemental EIR, which addressed the transportation of oil by tanker from the Gaviota
Interim Marine Terminal. As part of this Supplemental EIR, he helped develop an air
quality impact analysis for various tanker routes as well as for most of the alternatives
covered in the Gaviota Marine Terminal Supplemental EIR/EIS. Mr. Peirson was also
responsible for the preparation of the alternatives description and screening analysis done
as part of the Q-6 Supplemental EIR. Mr. Peirson was the project manager for the Unocal
Point Pedernales Field Development EIR/EIS, which included two offshore platforms, oil
and gas pipelines, and an onshore oil and gas processing facility.
In addition, Mr. Peirson was the Project Manager for the Unocal Point Pedernales
Supplemental EIR prepared for Santa Barbara County. This document addressed the impact
associated with the construction of a new gas plant near Lompoc, as well as the effect that
the closing of the Battles Gas Plant would have on other gas producers within Northern
Santa Barbara County and Southern San Luis Obispo County. This study required existing
oil and gas facilities in the study area to be evaluated, which include all of the existing
Unocal facilities. This document presented one of the most comprehensive insights into oil
and gas development activities within Northern Santa Barbara County.
Mr. Peirson was Project Manager of the Exxon SYU Supplemental EIR, the Exxon
Lompoc Pipeline Supplemental EIR, the Pacific Pipeline EIR, and numerous other EIRs
covering housing developments and modifications to existing facilities. Mr. Peirson was
also the Director in Charge of Arthur D. Littles ongoing contract with the SCAQMD to
provide CEQA support.
Mr. Peirson was program manager for the preparation of the Crude Oil Transportation
Analysis (COTA). This study was done for Santa Barbara County, and addressed the
economic, technical, and environmental issues associated with various crude oil
transportation alternatives including rail transport.
Refinery Projects
For a two Southern California refineries, Mr. Peirson was the audit team leader for an
environmental, health and safety (EHS) audit. The audit covered all Federal State and local
regulations that were applicable to the refinery. Mr. Peirson was responsible for overseeing
the entire audit, which include a team of 20 personnel. Mr. Peirson was personally
responsible for conducting the process safety management (PSM) portion of the audit. The
result of the audit was a set of recommendations for assuring compliance with applicable
regulations.
Page |4
mrs
For the Chevron Richmond Refinery, Mr. Peirson managed a safety culture assessment of
the refinery operations. This work was done at the request of the City of Richmond. As part
of this project, Mr. Peirson conducted safety audit and reviewed the operating procedures
of various operating units at the refinery. The project also involved extensive interview
with operators, maintenance workers, and refinery management. The result of this
assignment was an assessment of the safety culture at the refinery and a set of
recommendations for improvement.
For Contra Costa County Mr. Peirson managed a safety audit of the Golden Eagle Refinery.
The focus of the audit was on compliance with Process Safety Management (PSM)
requirements and the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance. This audit looked
at all of the operating units at the Refinery. The results of the audit were a set of
recommendations for improving safety and the safety culture at the Refinery. The report
was accepted by the County and the operator, and Mr. Peirson was responsible for
monitoring process on implementing the reports recommendations.
For the City of Benicia, Mr. Peirson conducted a safety audit of the Benicia Refinery. The
audit cover PSM regulations were well as safety culture. The majority of the operating
units at the refinery were evaluated. The results of the audit were a set of recommendations
for improving safety and the safety culture at the refinery. The report was accepted by the
County and the operator, and Mr. Peirson was responsible for monitoring process on
implementing the reports recommendations.
As part of the Oil Transportation Plan (OTP) prepared for the County of Santa Barbara, Mr.
Peirson was responsible for developing the refinery portion of the analysis. This study
looked at the economic impacts process OCS crude could have on various refineries in both
Southern and Northern California. Mr. Peirson worked with the refineries to develop
operating data that could be used in computer models to estimate the economic impacts of
processing OCS crude.
Mr. Peirson was one of the principal investigators in conducting a risk analysis on the
alkylation unit at a Los Angeles refinery. This study was requested by the LA Refinery to
investigate the relative degree of risk associated with alkylation processes involving
hydrogen fluoride (HF) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) catalysts. The study provided the
Refinery with a comparative summary of the two alkylation processes based on the risk
attributable to accidental releases from the processes. The study included operation,
re-generation, and transportation of HF and sulfuric acid utilizing risk analysis techniques.
The project involved developing frequency analysis, demographics, and process specific
release scenarios.
MR. Peirson was one of the team members that conducted Process Hazards Analysis on the
North Slope of Alaska for a wide range of oil and gas facilities including well pads,
gathering centers, utilities and gas and oil production facilities. The work involved leading
Page |5
mrs
Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOPs) and developing an Occupational Safety &
Health Administration (OSHA) compliant Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) reports and
hazard analysis approach.
For a U.S. refinery, Mr. Peirson worked with a team to perform a critical task analyses on
operating and maintenance procedures. The project involved the development of a standard
format to document procedures by task, responsibility, deviations, consequences, and
precautions required to perform the task safely. Procedures were analyzed and documented
in a tabular form to facilitate training and to provide a convenient reference.
Under contract to the County of Santa Barbara, California, Mr. Peirson lead a team of
consultants that conducted a detailed risk assessment of the proposed Chevron development
in the Santa Barbara Channel. The project consisted of three oil production platforms in
600 to 800 feet of water, gathering lines, subsea main oil and gas pipelines, shoreside
upgrading of the very sour crude at the nearby Gaviota, California processing facility,
onshore pipelines and tanker loading facilities. Impacts of particular concern to this study
included public risks and risk of oil pollution.
For the County of Santa Barbara Fire Department, Mr. Peirson worked with other staff to
conduct a detailed QRA of an offshore oil and gas production platform and an onshore oil
and gas processing facility. The project included a complete HAZOP of the facilities and a
detailed review of the safety management systems including mechanical integrity. The
results of these studies were then used to develop a detailed risk assessment of the
operations to determine the level of public risk. Mitigation measures were developed that
allowed the level of public risk from the facility to be reduce to acceptable levels. All of the
mitigation measures were adopted by the operator of the facility.
Mr. Peirson was project manager for a project to assess the level of public risk associated
the transportation of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) and natural gas liquids (NGL) via
tanker truck along various routes within California. The project involved the development
of truck specific accident and release rates, estimated spill volumes and associated hazard
zones. This data was all used in a QRA to estimate the overall public risk associated with
transporting LPG and NGL along various highway routes. Mitigation measures were
developed that allowed the level of public risk along various routes to be reduced to
acceptable levels.
Page |6
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: FW: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember Dan Kalb Seek Ban on Coal,
Citing Health & Safety Impacts
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:53:02 PM
PRR 16355
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Derryck, Erica <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:38 AM
Subject: FW: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember
Dan Kalb Seek Ban on Coal, Citing Health & Safety Impacts
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 | Email: ederryck@oaklandnet.com
Perfection!
I just spoke with Gil and although he wants to discuss coal and that will be the focus of the
interview, he would like to ask her about the missing police guns story. He would avoid the
Oakland cop scandal but would like to ask her reaction to this story;
http://extras.mercurynews.com/policeguns/.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Derryck, Erica <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Thanks. Were confirmed for 11:05 PT.
Best,
Erica
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 | Email: ederryck@oaklandnet.com
Even better!
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Derryck, Erica <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Actually can she still do 1105. That works better now. Thanks.
Best,
Erica
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 | Email: ederryck@oaklandnet.com
Great! Please have her call, 415-247-4937, a few minutes prior to 12:05pm.
Thanks Erica!
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Derryck, Erica <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
12:05 works. What number should she dial in on?
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 | Email: ederryck@oaklandnet.com
Sounds good!
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Derryck, Erica <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Working out time now. Would love if we could really stick to this and not dredge up all of the police
stuff too. Lemme know. Thanks.
Best,
Erica
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 | Email: ederryck@oaklandnet.com
Hi Erica,
Would Mayor Shaaf be available to discuss this for ten minutes on Talk 910am SF with Gil
Gross today at either 11:05am OR 12:05pm PT? It would be just herself and Gil and a cell
phone would be fine.
Thank you!
Sabrina Glazbrook
Producer, Gil Gross
Talk 910am
iHeartMedia San Francisco
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Derryck, Erica <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Media Contacts:
Oakland.
Office of Councilmember
Dan Kalb
(510) 238-7001
###
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Libby Schaaf
Nosakhare, Shereda
Fwd: Why no public health researchers to study coal?
Monday, August 08, 2016 3:53:37 PM
PRR 16355
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Cappio, Claudia <CCappio@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: Why no public health researchers to study coal?
To: "Derryck, Erica" <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "Boyd, Karen" <KBoyd@oaklandnet.com>, "Schaaf, Libby"
<libbyforoakland@gmail.com>, "Moss, Tomiquia" <TMoss@oaklandnet.com>
Hi Erica here is a summary of the full story on where weve been with the consultant issue
obviously needs to be figured out for clarity as we respond to inquiry. Likely too much information
but I tried to give you the background and context.
1) Sept 2015 coal public hearing held and testimony received. Council extended the time period
to receive more testimony.
2) Council directed staff to complete a review of the record, retain technical and expert assistance
as required and return to Council by February 2016.
3) In March, 2016, staff presented a draft scope of work pertaining to the technical and expert
supplemental assistance from ESA, total contract work approximately $240,000. The scope
included a detailed public health analysis component with the intention of demonstrating that
West Oakland and the surrounding area were already disproportionately impacted -- higher
asthma rates, air quality concerns, contamination of soil and water from past heavy industrial
activities. In addition, this scope included a public comment component at 2 stages: 1) once the
detailed draft was complete and again once the draft report was prepared.
4) Public comment was fairly negative spanning a variety of reasons not to hire ESA they were
not objective, had worked on the Benecia EIR for gas/oil; too much $$; ESA should not be in a
recommendation position that could lead to biased conclusions. Commentors wanted City to be
the arbiter of the information and analysis. Other commenters did not feel the need for any further
research or analysis but just wanted City Attorney to write up the findings.
5) In response, Council directed staff to return with a revised scope of work, cutting costs and
having the City be the reviewer and reach conclusions concerning public testimony and other
information.
6) Revised draft scope cut approximately $100k from budget by simplifying process and changing
the way we were going to handle public health impacts. The new scope would provide for a
comprehensive overview and reference to other available public health information and assessment
for W.Oakland from the W.Oakland Indicators Project, the Alameda County Public Health
Department, the CalEPA Enviroscreen tool, and others. This would be a more efficient and cost
effective approach for identifying the baseline level of public health impacts in W. Oakland.
7) Time is of the essence now the Council has asked for the recommendations and options for
dealing with the public health and safety findings in time to take action by recess at the end of July,
2016.
8) Revised ESA scope of work is on the Council agenda on Tuesday May 3.
In short it is not the lack of public health research, but rather the approach we are proposing
partly due to the timing and partly due to the funding considerations as in there is no budget for
this work.
Hope this information is useful -- C
From: Derryck, Erica
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 5:12 PM
To: Cappio, Claudia
Cc: Boyd, Karen; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: FW: Why no public health researchers to study coal?
Can you please help me w/ this response Claudia. Its due by Monday at 9.
Best,
Erica
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf | City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 | Email: ederryck@oaklandnet.com
I just read the staff report in full and I see it has some answers as to why ESAs proposal is superior to HIPs.
But still the No Coal activists are saying that ESA is likely to rubber stamp approval for coal because they
have a history of doing EIRs for oil and gas projects, that fossil fuel energy companies are their major
clients, so theyre not likely to make findings that there would be a negative health and safety impact. Id
really like to hear Mayor Schaafs take on that criticism of ESA. The staff report makes some reasonable
points about why ESAs proposal was better. Still the activists are suspicious. Not sure why theyre so
suspicious given the Mayors repeated assurances shes opposed to coal.
Erica Terry Derryck | Director of Communications |Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf |City of Oakland | One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza |
3rd Floor |Oakland, CA 94612 | Office: 510-238-7072 | Cell: 510-435-4345 |Email:ederryck@oaklandnet.com
Hi Erica,
I recall that the Mayor was instrumental in hitting pause on the Environmental Science Associates contract
to study the health and safety impacts of coal shipments through Oakland at the February 16 council
meeting.
Some of the anti-coal activists are saying that ESA simply shouldnt be hired because they dont have public
health expertise.
The No Coal in Oakland coalition was pushing for a public health research company to be hired instead.
What happened to that proposal?
Is the City going to be able to come to a decision on coal before the city councils summer recess? Whats
the timeline going forward?
Thanks,
Darwin