Você está na página 1de 100

From:

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

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Nosakhare, Shereda <SNosakhare@oaklandnet.com>


Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:03 PM
Subject: FW: Proposed Ordinances Banning Coal in Oakland
To: "Schaaf, Libby" <libbyforoakland@gmail.com>

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

From: O'Doherty, Keara S


Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:34 AM
To: Moss, Tomiquia
Cc: Nosakhare, Shereda
Subject: FW: Proposed Ordinances Banning Coal in Oakland

FYI

From: Kathy Kimura-Barnes [mailto:KBarnes@sticeblock.com]


Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:01 PM
To: City Administrator's Office; Office of the Mayor; Wald, Zachary; Kalb, Dan; Chen, Jessica; Campbell
Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry; At Large
Cc: Wald, Mark; Cappio, Claudia
Subject: Proposed Ordinances Banning Coal in Oakland


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

June 27, 2016


TRANMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
c/o cityadministrator@oaklandnet.com
Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Council President
Honorable Members of the City Council
CITY OF OAKLAND
City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California 94612
Re:

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

Council President McElhaney and Honorable Council Members,


INTRODUCTION
On behalf of our client, Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, we write in response to the
Notice of Hearing issued just three days ago on June 24 for tonights hearing on the potential adoption
of an ordinance banning coal and petcoke in the City of Oakland (Ordinance) and a resolution applying
that ban to the approved and vested bulk commodities terminal (Terminal) at the Oakland Global Trade
and Logistics Center (Project) on the former Oakland Army Base (Resolution and collectively
Ordinances). When elected officials of the City of Oakland take their oath of office, they swear to
uphold the laws of the City of Oakland. The 2013 Development Agreement for the Oakland Global Trade
and Logistics Center (DA) is a law of the City of Oakland as a duly enacted ordinance. For all of the
reasons provided herein, should members of the City Council choose to follow the staff
recommendation for tonights hearing, they risk at least three unfortunate consequences:
(1)

Conscious and intentional breach of their oath of office;

(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

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 2
The package of materials disseminated three days ago on Friday afternoon consists of a
225-page staff report that includes a report by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), the Ordinances,
and additional exhibits. Also disseminated were materials by Council Member Kalb (collectively Kalb
Memo) purportedly relating to health concerns for coal and petcoke. Collectively, these materials
reiterate repeatedly one consistent theme: that there are no circumstances whatsoever regardless of
resources or technology employed under which coal can be transported, stored, or handled safely.
Period. Ever. No matter what. Such a position is irrational, conflicts with on-the-ground realities
throughout the country, and is legally indefensible.
What is abundantly clear, based on the express statements of Oakland elected officials driven by
local and outside activist groups, is that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which coal being
transported, stored, and handled in Oakland is politically palatable, regardless of what means must be
employed to prohibit it. In their private capacity, individuals are certainly entitled to their viewpoints.
However, political determination and the rule of law are two very different things that implicate very
different consequences. That certain elected officials are committed to do anything to keep coal (and
apparently a long list of yet-to-be-disclosed other politically disfavored commodities) out of Oakland
may land them political support and votes, but they must also realize and own that such actions breach
existing and binding legal obligations, exposing the City to potentially unprecedented legal liability.
That the City Council in 2016 may want to invoke all means at their disposal to keep certain
commodities out of Oakland may be their prerogative. What is not within their political discretion is
disregarding the rule of law. The Developer of the Project has materially and detrimentally relied on the
2012 and 2013 vested Project entitlements. Millions of private dollars have been expended, binding
legal commitments have been executed, and other opportunities have been foregone, all in reliance on
the Citys prior actions. The City may not now shift the consequence and expense of its changed mind
and disappointment in the commitments it has inherited from prior Councils to the Project Developer.
Should it proceed along the course recommended by Staff, the City must be prepared to bear the
consequences and costs of that decision.
THE CITY KNOWINGLY DEPRIVED THE DEVELOPERS OF DUE PROCESS BY INTENTIONALLY DELAYING
THE RELEASE OF THE ORDINANCES AND NOTICE OF THE CITYS INTENDED COURSE OF ACTION TO JUST
THREE DAYS
The Friday Afternoon Document Dump and the Dubious Character of the Report
While the Ordinances never reference it explicitly, the 225-page staff report issued three days
prior to this hearing (Staff Report) relies extensively on a report by ESA (ESA Report). The base text and
Default as defined in the DA (i.e., failure of the City to fulfill one of its obligations under the DA). The Citys
contemplated action here is not a failure to act, but rather an ultra vires, extraordinary affirmative action, not
supported by law or substantial evidence, designed and calculated to deprive the developers of their rights under
the DA. Section 8.7 would not apply.

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 3
analysis of the Staff Report is 25 pages and is dated June 23, 2016. The ESA Report is 163 pages and is
also dated June 23, 2016. The Staff Report makes no effort to reconcile how a report dated the exact
date of the Staff Report itself could possibly serve as the evidentiary support for that Staff Report. Nor
does it explain how the Council is expected to evaluate the credibility, or lack thereof, of the ESA Report,
the Staff Report, or the recommended course of action therein by tonights hearing.
Further, the history of the retaining and completion of the ESA Report casts significant doubts
over its credibility as any sort of authoritative resource.
On September 21, 2015, 2 the City held a public hearing and received volumes of testimony and
evidence regarding the handling of coal generally. The City kept the public hearing open through
October 6, 2015, for the purpose of receiving additional materials. At this hearing, among other things,
staff was directed to review the materials compiled and report back to the Council with a
recommendation on its contents by the end of the year. That did not happen. As far as the public knew,
the compiled record simply sat somewhere within City Hall for over four months.
Then the San Francisco Chronicle reported on efforts of Mayor Schaaf and her staff confirming
a plan . . . to stop coal from being shipped . . . . 3 Additional troubling reports from the Chronicle piece
included:

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

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 4
through our city, Schaaf wrote in her letter. 4 The next day, California State Senator Loni Hancock,
flanked by outspoken Project opponents, held a press conference announcing the introduction of four
legislative bills, all of which were expressly designed to limit the operations of the Terminal.
Shortly thereafter, following a Senate Committee hearing where several members questioned
the purpose for the bill and why the City of Oakland was not present to explain its position on the
matter, Senator Hancock abandoned two of the four bills. The City re-engaged. On March 25, 2016, a
new request for comment on the ESA proposed scope of work was issued. But this time, the proposed
scope of work was not limited to the record compiled to date on coal; it added other hazardous fossil
fuel materials. On April 1, 2016, we wrote to the City pointing out that City had never solicited or
otherwise compiled evidence regarding other hazardous fossil fuel materials as it had on coal at the
September 21, 2015, hearing.
The noted hearing on the ESA proposal was again put off. Instead, on April 26 with a revision on
April 28, 2016, the City noticed an evidentiary hearing to be held on the Health and/or Safety Impacts
of Fuel Oils, Gasoline and/or Crude Oil Products for May 9, 2016. Additionally, the ESA proposal was
re-agendized for hearing by the City Council on May 3, 2016.
By this time, however, significant changes had been made to the proposed ESA Scope. The staff
recommendation still included a waiver of the Municipal Code mandated competitive selection
requirements, but the terms of the ESA proposal were different:

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

East Bay Express, February 17, 2016.

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 5
in that June 1 press release was a remarkably accurate foretelling of the plans and intentions of the City:
At the local level, the Oakland City Council plans to make public a coal ordinance on Friday, June 24 and
on Monday, June 27 the City Council will vote on whether to stop the coal proposal or move forward
with the developer's plans. Thus, the Citys intention to hold back the draft Ordinances and ESA
Report, affording the public only a weekend of review prior to the hearing, was intentional and
calculated.
This back-room, outcome-determinative rouse is both a sham and a denial of both substantive
and procedural due process. For the substantive reasons explained below, the ESA Report is nothing but
opinion based on speculation and thus can never qualify as substantial evidence as required in the DA.
But the proceedings called out above evidence a process intentionally deceptive and lacking in
transparency, fairness, and due process.
And even more recently on June 7, 2016, the City adopted The 2016-2021 Oakland Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan as an Amendment to the Safety Element of the Oakland General Plan. We know
from the Senator Hancock press release that the City already intended to spring the Ordinances on the
public at large just two weeks later. And yet, the City staff and Council considered and voted to amend
its General Plans Safety Element as to Local Hazard Mitigation. Knowing the evidence for and
Ordinances proposing a response to a purported immediate need to act to forestall a condition
substantially dangerous to the community, the City forged ahead on this action without any inclusion
or discussion whatsoever of this condition. If the purported condition was truly so certain, so dire,
and so imminent, how could it not have been relevant to the Hazard Mitigation aspect of the Safety
Element of the Citys General Plan?
The ESA Report Is Biased in Its Analysis
In its consideration of materials submitted to the City, the ESA report is openly biased, giving
undue credence to comments opposing the Project and summarily dismissing expert testimony and
evidence that coal can be and is daily transported safely throughout the United States today. For
example, the multi-disciplinary White Paper submitted to the City by HDR documented nationally
recognized protocols and procedures for the shipment of coal nationwide. The bona fides of the expert
authors of the White Paper were included with it.
But ESA summarily disregards the analysis and conclusions of the White Paper based upon the
un-challenged, speculative, and summary critique by an air pollution expert. (See ESA Report, pg.
2-14.) This pattern of biased consideration runs throughout the ESA Report and it is accordingly
compromised as any kind of substantive resource document.
But perhaps more important than teasing out critiques of this evidence, or the exalting of
speculative opinion is the framework methodology and conclusions here. Given the lack of a specific
facility to be considered and analyzed, the White Paper took a responsible and rational approach: it
acknowledged the lack of specificity for a facility in this instance and then openly went on to analyze the
best technologies currently available and referenced the best practices used today by commodities
2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 6
handlers. It then articulated the minimally mandatory measures that must be implemented for a yet-tobe designed Terminal at the Project site. All of those mandates were presented to the potential
operator of the Terminal, Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS), and TLS on the record expressly accepted all
such requirements. A logical process: heres what is required and affirmation by the responsible parties
that it will be done.
Conversely, the framework approach of ESA is to hypothesize a generic facility and conduct an
analysis applicable to any such facility and present an outcome-determined case that essentially
concludes that there are no circumstances, ever, regardless of resources expended, technology
employed, or mandates adhered to under which coal can be safely handled, ever. Absolutely none.
And ESAs bias is not just as to materials provided by consultants supporting the Project.
Extraordinarily, ESA summarily dismissed a comprehensive analysis by the federal Surface
Transportation Board in an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the Nation Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Prepared for the Tongue River rail project, the EIS concluded that all detects from
the transportation of coal were within acceptable levels under regulations promulgated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further, ESA ignored or failed to research the fact that in
commenting on the EIS, while EPA was critical of some aspects, it took no issue with that aspect of the
analysis. 5 (See, ESA Report, pg. 5-8 5-9.)
THE PROJECTS VESTED RIGHTS PROHIBIT IMPOSITION OF THE ORDINANCES ON THE PROJECT
The Staff Report and Ordinances claim that it is within the Citys authority and not an
impingement or violation of the vested rights granted to the Project via the DA to impose restrictions on
the Project operations because the Developers do not have a vested right not to be subject to the
Ordinance . . . . (Staff Report, pg. 2.) This is a position never previously espoused by the City. Instead,
the Citys focus, while regularly and expressly acknowledging the vested status of the Project under the
DA, has been on a potential health and safety exception in the DA and under California law (see
discussion below). Never before has the City claimed that it can impose operational restrictions on the
Project without violating the DA independent of the health and safety clause.
Nonetheless, the City now claims that because the DA does not explicitly grant the Project the
right to transport any commodity through the Terminal, the City is free to disallow any and all
commodities to which it has a political objection. Presumably, based upon the Staff Report and the
Ordinances, this authority is absolute and without limitation, even to the point of disallowing any
commodities to be transported. Obviously, the Staff is mistaken.
Section 3.4 of the DA could not be more clear: City shall not impose or apply any City
Regulations on the development of the Project Site that are adopted or modified by the City after the
Adoption Date of the DA. Specifically disallowed by DA Section 3.4.1 are any attempts at new
regulations that would:
5

The Tongue River EIS is available at: http://www.tonguerivereis.com/

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 7

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 increase the cost of development of the Project . . .


o Disallowing fully lawful operations of the Project increases the cost of the Project not
only by disallowing a potential revenue source, but also by increasing the cost and
accessibility of financing for the Project by injecting a significant level of uncertainty into
the Project viability based on politics.

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.

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 8

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.

September 10, 2015 Staff Report, pg. 3.

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 9
Kathryn Floyd of the Venable Law Firm in Washington, D.C., a noted expert on federal
preemption for commodity transport, provided the evidence and analysis as to why efforts by the City to
block coal, or any other legally transported commodity, are preempted. That testimony written and
oral are hereby incorporated by reference and renewed.
The Citys efforts to regulate coal and petcoke in all instances but simultaneously and
disingenuously claim to exempt and not regulate the rail transportation aspects are unavailing. The
bottom line is that the City is trying to block transport of this legal commodity and keep it out of
Oakland, and such an effort, however allegedly nuanced, is federally preempted and illegal under
federal law. Accordingly, it fails the first criteria of Section 3.4.2 rendering the clause inapplicable in this
instance.
THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF
THE ORDINANCES ON THE PROJECT
Even were the Ordinances not federally preempted, the Citys Friday-afternoon document-dump
is inadequate to satisfy the second requirement of Section 3.4.2: substantial evidence . . . that a failure
to [act] 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.
As a threshold matter, the City has failed to identify what it claims is the condition substantially
dangerous to their health or safety. A fair reading of the Staff Report, the ESA Report, and the Kalb
Memo garners only one such purported condition: coal in Oakland, anywhere, anytime, under any
circumstances, at least as it relates to the Project. Admittedly, yes, the City exempts a myriad of other
contexts where coal is allowed and not implicated by the Ordinances. But that far from cures the
situation; it only highlights that it is illegal as arbitrary and capricious, as discussed below.
The City has not identified a given condition that is substantially dangerous to those at and
around the Project. What is it exactly, other than a blanket and absolute ban on coal in any and all
instances, they are trying to prevent?
The next factor is timing. Section 3.4.2 is clear that a failure to act will be the conduit to the
condition of concern. But as the City has repeatedly been made aware, there is no commitment to
transport coal, or any other commodity for that matter, through the Terminal. Nor has there been
submitted to the City any permit application for the construction of the Terminal. As a purpose-built
facility, it is premature to apply for a permit prior to determination of what may or may not be shipped.
And there is, at this point, no determined or committed commodity. But it is indisputable that the
Terminal construction will not be able to proceed without coming back to the City for such a permit. So,
again, why now? What is the specific instance at this point in time, such that the requisite failure to
act is triggered? Again, what is the condition, today, that will otherwise proceed to fruition should
the City fail to act now?

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 10
Even assuming the City had satisfactory answers to these two preliminary questions, it has
provided no substantial evidence to back up the claim of a condition substantially dangerous posed
by the Project, requiring them to now act. The Staff Report references vaguely the extensive record
submitted over the past nine months and even before, and more specifically to the ESA Report, but
none of that material provides any substantial evidence that can back up the Ordinances relative to
the criteria in Section 3.4.2 in that all such materials are mere speculation and opinion which do not
meet the criteria for substantial evidence under California law.
California law is abundantly clear that speculation, conjecture, or assumptions cannot provide a
foundation for substantial evidence.
Although it is true that the testimony of a single witness, including the
testimony of an expert, may be sufficient to constitute substantial
evidence (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472,
487), when an expert bases his or her conclusion on factors that are
speculative, remote or conjectural, or on assumptions ... not
supported by the record, the expert's opinion cannot rise to the
dignity of substantial evidence and a judgment based solely on that
opinion must be reversed for lack of substantial evidence. (Pacific Gas
& Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 11351136.)
Similarly, [a]n expert's opinion that assumes an incorrect legal theory
cannot constitute substantial evidence. (Corrales v. Corrales (2011) 198
Cal.App.4th 221, 226). Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (US) (2013) 220
Cal.App.4th 1180, 1191-92.
More specifically:
The value of opinion evidence rests not in the conclusion reached but in
the factors considered and the reasoning employed. (People v. Coogler
(1969) 71 Cal.2d 153, 166; People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 141.)
Where an expert bases his conclusion upon assumptions which are not
supported by the record, upon matters which are not reasonably relied
upon other experts, or upon factors which are speculative, remote or
conjectural, then his conclusion has no evidentiary value. (Hyatt v.
Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 338339; Richard v. Scott
(1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 57, 63.) In those circumstances the expert's
opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence. (Hyatt v.
Sierra Boat Co., supra.) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987)
189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1135-36.
Of course, the inference or inferences indulged in must be reasonable, must be based on the
evidence, and cannot be the result of mere guess, surmise or conjecture. Reese v. Smith, 9 Cal.2d 324;

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 11
Puckhaber v. Southern Pac. Co., 132 Cal. 363; McKellar v. Pendergast, 68 Cal.App.2d 485, 156 P.2d 950.
Oregon-Nevada-California Fast Freight v. Fruehauf Trailer Co. (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 620, 624.
As the City was advised repeatedly, most recently in a comment letter on the last of the myriad
Citys multiple efforts to actually retain ESA, there is nothing for ESA, or anyone else for that matter, to
yet evaluate in terms of health and safety concerns, or lack thereof. The Project has not yet delivered to
the City any substantive design or operations proposal for the Terminal. As noted above, any such
submittal would be premature prior to definitive determination and commitment as to the commodity
or commodities to be shipped, and that has not yet happened.
Indeed, as the Developers readily predicted in their comment letter, the first thing ESA did after
being retained by the City was request from the Developers specifics regarding the design and
operations specifications for the Terminal. As the Developers had already informed the City, none yet
exist and this analysis, therefore, is premature. Nonetheless, the City and ESA forged ahead.
The ESA Report is premised, by its own terms, almost exclusively on the Basis of Design (BoD)
submittal to the City. However, as the introductory pages of the BoD make explicitly clear, the BoD is
not, and was never intended to be, a full or even near-full design proposal for the Terminal or its
operations. Rather, the BoD is a foundational floor with which any future facility must comply.
Comprised primarily of federal, state, regional, and local regulations and the Standard Conditions of
Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program with which the Project must comply. It is not in
any way elaborative on the design of the facility, technology to be employed, operational parameters to
be implemented, or other critical variables that have yet to be determined. In its own words, the BoD
represents the starting 10 percent of what will be required to be shown for whatever the Terminal
ultimately is proposed to be.
And while the ESA Report expressly acknowledged as much, it nonetheless irresponsibly and
inappropriately purported to draw conclusions. But were those conclusions as to a particular facility?
No. The ESA Report repeatedly caveated and premised its analyses and conclusions to state it was
evaluating, effectively, a hypothetical facility of generic character. For example:
The analysis below would generally apply to any bulk commodity facility
which proposes the rail transport, handling, and storage, and
transloading of coal and petcoke for export. As one illustrative example
of such a facility, ESA analyzed the proposed new Oakland Bulk and
Oversized Terminal (OBOT) facility to be located at the former Oakland
Army Base in West Oakland. ESA relied upon the OBOT Proponent's
Basis of Design (BoD)1 and correspondence with the City of Oakland for
this analysis of the proposed OBOT.2'3 The BoD is considered conceptual
at this stage by the OBOT Proponents.4 However, ESA notes that this
design might be used as a basis for any similar bulk commodity facility
located at a port. (ESA Report, p. 2-1.)

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 12
And:
This study is based upon a screening level review of the preliminary BoD
for the Terminal. It is anticipated that the OBOT will submit detailed
design plans beyond this initial design stage when it has confirmed a
particular operator for the Terminal and committed to a commodity to
be shipped. These design features might be used as a basis for any
similar new bulk commodity facility handling coal and/or petcoke that is
located at a port. (2-1 2-2.)
There was and is no facility to evaluate. Therefore, by definition, ESAs analysis of potential
health and safety implications of the Terminal is speculative and conjecture. California law is clear that
such hypothesizing cannot and does not rise to the level of substantial evidence. Thus, Section 3.4.2,
again, is not satisfied.
THE ORDINANCES ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
Not only are the Ordinances inconsistent with Section 3.4.2 because (1) they are not otherwise
legal, and (2) they are not supported by substantial evidence, they are independently invalid because
they are arbitrary and capricious.
As explained above, because there were no actual design specifications or operational
parameters for ESA to utilize in its analysis including type of commodity to be shipped, quantities of
respective commodities at any given time, facility design, containment technologies, ventilation
systems, or operational safety regimes the conclusions of ESA are definitionally conjecture and
speculative and therefore not substantial evidence under California law. And, again, the absence of
those defining and essential variables only highlights that, at this time, there is not and cannot be any
imperative to act given that there is no pending condition substantially dangerous to the
community.
But even were we to consider the data assumed and speculated by ESA, as presented in the
table below, it still does not support the staff-recommended action. The Staff Report finds: Per the
table below, the overall emissions from the OBOT project are expected to exceed both the daily and
annual PM10 and PM2.5 City of Oakland CEQA Thresholds of Significance9, which would be considered a
significant unavoidable impact under CEQA and thus presumptively a substantially dangerous condition
to health. (Staff Report, pg. 12, emphasis added.) Even indulging the speculative nature of ESAs
assumptions, Staff itself recognizes the uncertain nature of the conclusions, falling back on terms like
expected and presumptive.

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 13

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

Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions Source

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

Staging at Port Railyard, Rail Spur Trip


to OBOT

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

PROJECT TOTAL Oakland

276

134

21

1,564

763

115

OBOT Operations

* Uncontrolled air emissions of fugitive dust from open coal filled rail cars. .

(ESA Report, pg. 5-17.)


But even further, the conclusion is arbitrary and capricious beyond being speculative. The table
shows that the vast majority of suspected potential emissions come from the rail transport and not
the OBOT Operations. And even with the intertwined operations, the ESA analysis remains tentative
and speculative:
Thus, the OBOT operations at the terminal itself, OBOT operations at
the new Port Railyard, and the new OBOT rail spur (serving the OBOT)
could impact the health of adjacent neighbors from the expected
increase into the ambient air in the form of total suspended particulates
and fine particulates (TSP, PM10, and PM2.5) and increased days of
exceedances of the PM10 and PM2.5 standards, from the transport by
rail, staging/spur transit, unloading, storage, transfer, and transloading
of coal for export. (ESA Report, pg. ES-4.)

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 14
Additionally, the conclusion of the Staff Report, premised upon Table 5.7, is incorrect. The table
is based upon an ESA-presumed 5 million metric tons of through-put per year. 7 At this presumed level of
throughput, the table estimates that the PM2.5 emissions from the OBOT Operations are less than the
noted threshold of significance, and the estimated PM10 emissions only slightly exceed the daily and
annual load thresholds. Based on this estimated data, the Staff Report concludes that there is no
amount of coal or petcoke that can safely be transported through the Terminal. This is incorrect. The
appropriate reading of the analysis represented in Table 5.7 is that a lesser quantity of throughput, even
by ESAs assumption-rich analysis, presents no such risk relative to the ESA-invoked threshold.
But the Staff Report itself contends that the Ordinances do not apply to nor regulated rail
transport:
The Ordinance does not regulate the transportation of coal or coke, for
example, by train or marine vessel, through the City of Oakland or to or
from a Coal or Coke Bulk Material Facility. The Ordinance also exempts
from the definition of Coal or Coke Bulk Material Facility (i)
noncommercial facilities (e.g., educational facilities or residential
property on which persons may Store or Handle small amounts of coal
or coke for personal, scientific, recreational or incidental use), and (ii)
on-site manufacturing facilities where all of the coal or coke is
consumed on-site at that facility's location and utilized on-site as an
integral component in a production process, and which are operated
pursuant to, and consistent with, permits granted by the (BAAQMD).
(Staff Report, pg. 6.)
And by the Citys own intention and design, they are not seeking to regulate the major source of
emissions they claim to identify. Clearly, the Citys assumption is that if they block the handling of the
commodity at the facility, they necessarily block the transport. Clever, perhaps, but this sort of
regulatory gerrymandering is precisely why Congress occupied the field of commodity transport and
federally preempted proposed regulations such as this.
Also arbitrary and capricious is the second category expressly exempted from the Ordinances:
on-site manufacturing facilities where all of the coal or coke is consumed on-site at that facility's
location and utilized on-site as an integral component in a production process, and which are operated
pursuant to, and consistent with, permits granted by the (BAAQMD). (Staff Report, pg. 6.) The ESA
Report repeatedly notes that the manufacturing process specifically exempted here presents the
identical concerns and impacts in terms of fugitive dust and emissions from incorporation of the
commodity into the manufacturing process as that assumed for the Terminal.

Again, all such figures are sheer speculation and conjecture by ESA, no specific commodity or quantity of
commodity having been confirmed to this date.

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 15
Coal combustion and petcoke/coal use for iron and steel production
emit other air pollutants that can have impacts to human health and the
environment, both locally and globally. Although those emissions can be
difficult to quantify due to the number of variables influencing
emissions, there is substantial and credible scientific evidence that
some of these air pollutants would be transported to Oakland, including
West Oakland, southern Emeryville, and western San Leandro, where
these pollutants would contribute to already high pollutant
concentrations, contribute to the existing number of days of
exceedances of the ambient air quality standards (for PM2.5 in
particular) and exacerbate health effects in three local communities
classified as disadvantaged. (ESA Report, pg. ES-7.)
THE ESA REPORTS SAFETY ANALYSIS IS ENTIRELY PREMISED ON THE ASSUMPTION AND
SPECULATION THAT A FIRE WILL NECESSARILY OCCUR
Premised upon the fact that history records 13 rail car fires over 15 years throughout the
entire world, most of which were likely caused by spontaneous combustion, the ESA Report grounds
it entire Safety analysis on the speculative assumption that there must eventually be a fire at the
Terminal. (See, generally, ESA Report Chapter 6.) However, even the ESA Report itself notes that the
variables potentially contributing to a fire are well understood and readily managed and mitigated:
Spontaneous combustion is a time-dependent phenomenon. Early
attention to the potential sources of problems may prevent
occurrences of heating progressing to full-scale spontaneous
combustion. In comparison, petcoke is much less volatile than
bituminous coal, and has a substantially lower risk of fires and
explosions. (ESA Report, pg. 6-2, emphasis added.)
Further, the ESA Report conveniently ignores substantial evidence in the record that the fire risk
are well understood and mitigated in the industry. In an attachment to the HDR White Paper by Jensen
Hughes, expert testimony specifies the measures necessary to ensure a safe facility from a
combustibility standpoint and concludes:
In conclusion, the risks of fire and explosion occurrences in coal
handling and storage are well understood and can be readily managed.
If an event did occur, there would be systems in place to limit the risk to
life and property. The design of the facility will follow well-established
industry guidelines and will implement the measures identified above to
mitigate, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, the risk of fire or
explosions. (Technical Memorandum with respect to the potential bulk
transfer of coal at the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 16
Project, September 15, 2015, submitted to the City in conjunction with
its September 21, 2015 hearing on coal.)
THE ESA REPORTS CONCLUSIONS REGARDING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LACK CREDIBILITY
The ESA Report seems to argue that if coal or petcoke are transported through the Terminal,
they will, without doubt, be shipped to China where they will be burned producing additional
greenhouse gases and that the consequence of that incremental (ESAs terminology) contribution
directly impacts the health and safety of Oaklanders. With full recognition of the threat posed by
climate change, including sea level rise, the direct correlation is nonsensical and absurd.
As a preliminary matter, indulging ESAs assumption that the material would make its way to
China and be burned there, there is no evidence, nor does ESA even feign to argue, that this would
result in new energy production facilities contributing new emissions. If these facilities did not get the
necessary materials from this assumed chain of delivery, they would get them someplace else. The
assumed and unchallenged premise that these would result in new emissions is beyond speculative and
conjecture. Accordingly, it is not substantial evidence.
Next, even assuming the volume of coal and petcoke assumed by ESA were shipped and further
indulging the speculation by ESA of the material being burned and emissions produced, there is far from
any material contribution in this increment, even if they were all shown to be new emissions. With
the backdrop of 46 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions globally in 2010, 8 the maximum
increment indulging all speculation and assumptions by ESA, is 0.000398%. It is not surprising that the
ESA Report failed to include this math, far from a material increment.
Finally, are we going to attribute to mere transport and handling providers all consequence of
the end-user of the commodity being shipped? Will the City begin to apply that policy across the board
to all materials shipped through Oakland facilities? Every product shipped in containers? Every
truckload of fuel? Under this approach, the City would have to hold gas station owners responsible for
greenhouse gas emissions from cars that re-fuel at their facility.
THE ORDINANCES EXHAUSTION PROVISIONS ARE UNENFORCABLE
The Ordinance includes an administrative procedure that purports to be a condition precedent
for any claim that application of the Ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property. The
process as outlined is unduly burdensome and, in this instance would be futile. Accordingly, it is
unenforceable. (See Ogo Associates v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830.)

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

Council President McElhaney


Honorable City Councilmembers
June 27, 2016
Page 17
CONCLUSION
It is abundantly clear that the City is not interested in a good-faith determination of design,
practices, and procedures that would be required to ensure the health and safety of Terminal-related
operations. Politically, no quantity of handling coal or petcoke under whatever extraordinary standard
will be tolerated. And the paper trail dumped last Friday was clearly and attempt to justify a course of
action that had long-since been committed to. While that may accomplish a political outcome, it is only
the first steps towards an unfortunate legal outcome.
As addressed above, action consistent with the staff recommendation comes with
consequences. It will constitute a breach of the DA for which the Developer will seek full recovery of all
damages, including consequential and punitive damages. As explained in the beginning of this letter,
the clause in the DA purporting to limit recovery of damages will be inapplicable in this instance. That
clause expressly applies only to Events of Default which are defined to be a failure to carry out an
obligation under the DA. Acting in according with the staff recommendation would not be a failure to
act. It would be an affirmative action, illegal and in excess of the Councils power and authority.
Accordingly, that limitations clause would be inapplicable.
As futile as it seems at this point, we strongly urge and the request to reconsider what appears
to us to be a foregone conclusion and work with the Developer to find a mutually acceptable solution, as
admittedly vexing and elusive as that has proven to date.
Sincerely,

David Smith
STICE & BLOCK, LLP

cc:

Libby Schaaf, Mayor


Claudio Cappio, Assistant City Administrator
Mark Wald, Office of the City Attorney

2335 Broadway, Suite 201, Oakland, California 94612

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

California Senate moves to delay Oakland coal-export plant


JONATHAN J. COOPER, ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 1, 2016Updated: June 1, 2016 2:24pm

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) Democrats in the California Senate on


Wednesday approved legislation that would delay a proposed export facility
in Oakland to ship coal to Asia, a project that's drawn fierce opposition from
environmentalists.
Senators voted to require a more rigorous environmental review of the plan.
The possibility of a coal shipping terminal has roiled Oakland for more than
a year as environmentalists worry about the health impact of sending
millions of tons of the fossil fuel annually through the city on its way to
Asia.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has worked to build an image as a global
leader in the fight against climate change, has remained quiet on the

proposal. Brown is a former mayor of Oakland. Brown spokesman Gareth


Lacey confirmed that the project's lead developer, Phil Tagami, and the
governor are friends.
If the bill clears the Legislature, it would need Brown's signature to take
effect.
The bill, SB1277, is the only surviving piece of a slate of proposals by
Oakland Democratic Sen. Loni Hancock seeking to slow or derail the
project in her district.
Environmental studies done so far looked generically at commodity exports
and did not consider the impacts of coal, Hancock said. An additional
review "will help ensure any impacts of shipping coal through the port and
community are analyzed and addressed," she said.
Critics of the bill say coal shouldn't be treated differently from other
commodities.
The Senate's 25-13 vote fell along party lines with Republicans opposed. The
measure goes next to the state Assembly, where environmental legislation
has recently struggled to get past moderate Democrats who often side with
business interests.
State lawmakers in Utah have approved more than $50 million in public
funding to build the facility, hoping to spur investment in the state's rural
counties struggling with high unemployment.
Jerry Bridges, president and CEO of the company that wants to ship the
coal, says Oakland desperately needs the jobs. He also said the coal will be
transported via covered rail cars and unloaded through underground
chutes, greatly reducing the possibility of coal dust in the air.
The project is also contentious because Tagami had announced in 2013 that

no coal would be shipped through the proposed $880 million development


on the former Oakland Army Base. That changed in 2014 after he partnered
with Bridges' company, which has talked with Utah about exporting coal
mined in that state.
The Oakland City Council is prepared to vote later this month on whether to
stop the proposal by declaring it a safety and health hazard to people living
near the rail line.
###

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:

Oakland-area survey shows overwhelming opposition to proposed coalexport terminal

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.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

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>

FYI- Letter sent from Senator Hancock.

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

From: Cortes, Isabel [mailto:Isabel.Cortes@sen.ca.gov]


Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Cortes, Isabel
Subject: Senator Hancock: Letter to CTC Chair Dunn - Oakland Army Base Project and Prop 1B Funds

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.

Senate Bill 1277


This bill seeks to: This bill requires a public agency with discretionary authority over
the Bulk and Oversized Terminal project, located in the former Oakland Army Base,
to prepare or cause to be prepared a supplemental environmental impact report to
consider and mitigate the shipment of coal through the terminal.

Support for the bill:


The mayors of Richmond and Berkeley both attended the hearing and voiced support
for the bill, as did a representative on behalf of the City of Emeryville. There was also
a rep from ILBW and SEIU in support, Ms. Margaret Gordon, and others.

Opposition to the bill:


Opposition to the bill came from the CA Building Industry Association, the railroads
(UP), and the attorney for the Master Developer.

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.

Senate Bill 1279


This bill seeks to: This bill prohibits the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) from programming or allocating funds for any port facility project located in or
adjacent to a disadvantaged community which exports or proposes to export coal
from California.

This bill was held in committee and the next steps will be resolved in the next few
days.

Please let me know if there are any questions.

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>

Great victory. Congratulations.


g

George Fertitta
CEO
Bloomberg Associates
25 East 78th Street
New York, NY 10075
o: +1 212.205.0239
e: gfertitta@bloomberg.org

From: Deane-Krantz, Tarara


Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:50 PM
To: Harris, Patti; Jaffin, Allison; Molstre, Kim; Sheekey, Kevin; Wolfson, Howard; Williams, Antha;
Fertitta, George
Subject: NYT: Oakland Votes to Block Large Shipments of Coal

NYT: Oakland Votes to Block Large Shipments of Coal


By THOMAS FULLERJUNE 28, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/oakland-coal-transport-ban.html


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:

Sabrina Landreth, City Administrator


Libby Schaaf, Mayor
Barbara Parker, City Attorney
City Councilmembers

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

From: Klein, Heather


Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 4:50 PM
Subject: Public Review Draft Scope of Work regarding Health and/or Safety Effects of
Coal at the OBOT

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

350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 300

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)

TOTAL HOUR/COST ESTIMATES

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.

Chuck has more than four decades of experience in applied environmental


studies and project management, including over 46 years at ESA. Chuck, one of
ESAs original emplowees, serves as consultant and directs work in applied
technical studies, impact analysis and environmental impact report/statement
(EIR/EIS) preparation. He has directed and contributed to more than 275
CEQA/NEPA impact studies and 500 technical studies in air quality, wind effects,
health and safety, noise, vibration, visual effects and electromagnetic hazard. He
directed studies of major industrial and public works projects, such as San
Francisco's Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant; sewage solids handling
facilities at the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant;
modifications to the San Pablo (earthfill) Dam; flood control works; quarries;
pipelines and industrial developments. He prepared EIRs and MNDs for CPUC
projects including telecommunications facilities and electric power transmission
lines and substations. He also has long CEQA experience with petroleum
refineries, having directed preparation of EIRs for a number of projects at the 5 SF
Bay Area refineries. His technical work includes technical assistance and
preparation of EIRs for hospitals, laboratories and other facilities at UC San
Francisco and the Bevatron building at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Two recent projects are: preparation of the EIR for UC San Franciscos 2014 Long
Range Development Plan and preparation of an IS/MND for the 2015 Silicon Valley
Regional Communications Sysstem (SVRCS) Site Upgrade Project.
At ESA, Chuck serves as Project Director, Project Manager, Lead Technical
Investigator, and Senior Technical Consultant.

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.

UC and Health Risk


UC San Francisco 2014 Long Range Development Plan EIR. Project Manager.
ESA prepared the EIR for the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) 2014
Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), adopted by the Regents in November
2014. UCSF is the only campus in the UC system devoted exclusively to health
sciences, and has no undergraduate students.
The 2014 LRDP assesses overall growth potential through the year 2035 and
provides guidance for individual project proposals over the next 20 years. ESA
worked closely with UCSF and UOP staff to prepare the UCSF Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Reduction Strategy, which was adopted by the Regents as a part of the 2014
LRDP and will facilitate future environmental review under CEQA. UCSF is an urban
institution with many campus sites in San Francisco. The 2014 LRDP could result in
an additional 2.4 million gross square feet of growth in owned and leased buildings,
with the most growth in new buildings at the Mission Bay campus site, where land is
available and new infrastructure planned, but also at the Parnassus Heights, Mount
Zion, and Mission Center campus sites. 2014 LRDP proposals for Parnassus Heights
advance UCSF toward compliance with the space ceiling imposed by the Regents,
and with state seismic laws for inpatient hospitals. The 2014 LRDP proposes
demolishing buildings, constructing a new addition to Long Hospital, and doubling
the number of on campus housing units at Parnassus Heights, as well as doubling
on campus housing at Mission Bay, in order to reduce traffic impacts, enhance
campus vitality, and support City of San Francisco housing goals.
The EIR considers the overall effects of each of the 2014 LRDP demolition,
renovation, building construction, and infrastructure and utilities proposals, as well
as their future operation. To enable the EIR to analyze each of these proposals,
individual projects were assumed to occur within one of four likely time frames that
cover the 20-year life of the LRDP. Although the 2014 LRDP is a long-term plan with
campus-wide elements, it focuses physical growth and change at four major UCSF
campus sites. The structure of the EIR responds by analyzing all potential campuswide environmental effects of the LRDP in one chapter and then analyzing the
specific effects at each campus site in four subsequent chapters. The LRDP impact
chapter includes program-level mitigation measures to reduce most impacts to less
than significant; these measures also apply to the specific development proposals
at each campus site. This approach shortens the program-level and project-level
analyses of development proposals and simplifies the presentation of those
impacts and mitigation measures in the four campus site chapters of the EIR.

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

researchers to characterize the emissions and the project architects and


engineers to develop effective exhaust stack designs and operating parameters.
UC San Francisco Building 24 Fume Hood Exhaust Stack Testing, Design
Assistance and Health Risk Assessment. Project Manager. Under contract to UC
San Francisco, ESA prepared a Health Risk Assessment at this first UCSF building
in the new Mission Bay campus. ESA worked with the UCSF project team to
identify and quantify the critical sources of toxic emissions, assess the public
exposures to these toxic emissions that would result from the operation of the
building, and evaluate the overall health risk to the public from the normal
operation of the building. Because the building is planned to be located next to a
day-care center and near a future public school site, the normal numerical
screening models were considered to be too uncertain for sole use. The source
term came from projected use of toxic materials, the physical data on dilution of
exhaust came from the wind-tunnel tests and one year of local meteorological
data was used to determine the frequency of exposure. This result was an
independent empirical estimate of the potential acute and chronic health impacts
that could result from the operation of the project. This empirical estimate was
then compared with the standard numerical modeling results, which yielded a
higher estimate of the health risk than did the empirical method. With this
information in hand, the UCSF design team was able to make logical design
decisions based on the known design factors, cost and overall effectiveness of the
HVAC and toxic exhaust systems. ESA also conducted wind-tunnel tests to assist
in the design and placement of fume hood exhaust stacks to serve the chemical
laboratories, biological research laboratories and animal facilities. In addition to
design assistance, ESA worked with project architects and engineers to develop
rational criteria to measure the performance of the fume hood and generator
exhaust system systems. ESA worked with the project team to develop effective
and cost-conscious solutions to problems found.
UCSF Long-Range Development Plan Hospital Amendment EIR. Project Manager.
Chuck managed the EIR on the Hospital Amendment to UCSFs 1996 LRDP. ESA staff
analyzed air quality and noise impacts from the construction and operation of the
proposed Hospital based on the criteria set-forth in the CEQA and Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA guidelines. ESA staff also assessed air
quality effects of traffic using URBEMIS and analyzed Toxic Air Contaminant
emission impacts using a risk-based approach. The LRDP Amendment addresses
the inclusion and upgrading of UCSF's Hospital facilities that were addressed in the
original LRDP. The 1996 LRDP did not consider the proposed facilities and functions
because, at that time, they were to be under the control of the merged UCSFStanford clinical entity. The termination of the UCSF-Stanford Health Care entity
left UCSF with a LRDP that did not address the existing clinical facilities, the
changes needed to meet the growth in demand for services, or the seismic safety
mandates of Senate Bill 1953 and subsequent legislation.
Chiron Corporation Master Development Plan Health Risk Assessment and
Pedestrian Wind Tests. Project Manager. Chuck provided detailed technical
studies for the Chiron project to evaluate health risk to the neighbors that could
result from Chiron's nearly one million square feet of research laboratories,
proposed to be located next to a residential neighborhood. Used a combination
of wind tunnel and numerical modeling studies to assess potential impacts.
Directed preparation of the complex biological, chemical and physical health and

Chuck Bennett
Page 5

safety, hazardous materials / site contamination and air toxic evaluations


performed on the project.

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.

Utility & Planning Projects


Pacific Enterprises and Enova Proponents Environmental Assessment.
Project Director. Prepared for use by Pacific Enterprises and Enova, parent
companies of Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas and Electric
Company respectively, in support of the parent companies merger application to
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The document evaluated the
environmental effects that could result from the merger of the holding companies
into a new parent company, now called Sempra Energy. This work was prepared on
an extremely accelerated 3-week schedule that required very substantial effort by
nearly 10 key ESA staff, who worked nights and weekends for the duration of the
work to help the client meet their inflexible submittal deadline. After the submittal,
similar efforts were required to prepare formal responses to technical comments
and interrogatories by project opponents as a part of the CPUC process.
Site Selection. US Ecology Low-Level Radioactive Waste Site. Directed ESAs
effort to establish and operate meteorological stations to provide data to support
selection for a disposal site in Southern California. In addition to initial shorterterm efforts for meteorological site selection, planning, construction and
operation to screen each of the candidate areas, it was required to conduct
longer-term measurements, exceeding the minimum 1-year of continual
measurements and meeting the specific operational data gathering reliability
standard, for the prime site. He also prepared ESA's QA/QC Plan to meet strict
NRC quality assurance requirements and served as the Quality Control Officer for
the duration of the program.

Chuck Bennett
Page 7

California Advanced Environmental Technology Corporations Hazardous


Materials Transfer Facility Negative Declaration. Project Director. Work
included preparation of a supporting technical study of the risk from possible
accidents, and he made presentations of these technical findings at three
separate meetings to neighborhood community action groups including the West
County Toxics Coalition and the Toxic Cloud Task Force, and to study sessions of
the City Council and Environmental Assessment Panels.
U.S. Postal Service Master Contracts. Project Director. He was the primary
contact with the client, assigns staff, and provides oversight direction of all of the
more than 120 NEPA and related studies performed over a five-year period in the
western U.S. in support for siting U.S. Postal Service facilities.
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan EIR. Project Director. Chuck directed an EIR
to provide consulting assistance for the proposed Bay Point Waterfront Strategic
Plan. The Redevelopment Agency proposed 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 Plan also required 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 site.

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

Stanford University's Communication Satellite Siting Program. The Gibraltar Peak


site included hundreds of antennas, with a range of transmitter powers from a
few watts to thousands of watts and EMR frequencies from AM radio to FM radio,
TV, cellular and microwave communications links. The principal investigator for
the evaluation of the biological effects was Dr. Guy.
Microwave Interference and Health Risk Analyses. Chuck directed the
microwave interference and health risk analyses for the Pacific Plaza, the Golden
State Tower, and the R Street Corridor EIRs for the City of Sacramento. There was
concern that the buildings would interfere with established microwave
communications links as well as with long-range weather radar. ESA examined
the interference and also evaluated the health-related questions for individuals
working within the buildings close to the microwave link paths.
GTE Mobilnet Site Cell EIR. Project Manager. Project included a 35-foot tower
supporting three transmitting antennas and associated receiving antennas and a
pre-fabricated equipment shelter proposed adjacent to the Fisher Junior High
School in Los Gatos, CA. The EIR included a detailed field test program to
characterize radiofrequency radiation (RFR) levels at points of closest public
access and in areas that children would occupy throughout the school day. The
test program, conducted by Professor Bruce Lusignan of Stanford, erected a
temporary cellular transmission facility, complete with transmitters and
antennas. RFR (radio-frequency radiation) levels were measured with precision
instruments at representative locations on the grounds of the school and on
adjacent public areas. Simultaneously, a literature search was conducted by
Professor Jerrold Bushberg of U.C. Davis, to review current knowledge about the
effects of exposure to RFR and to assess existing standards for exposure to RFR.
Current laboratory and epidemiological literature were reviewed, as they
represent the sources for recommended exposure limits. The processes by which
the standards are set and updated were reviewed and conclusions about the
adequacy of the standards to address the impacts of the proposed project were
presented. Finally, the efforts of the two studies were integrated: the results of the
measurement of RFR levels were used to evaluate the potential for adverse health
effects with the project. The measured RFR levels for the site were compared to
existing standards for exposure to RFR to determine if the existing facilities
present a significant adverse risk to public health and safety.
Miscelllaneous CPUC Master Contracts. Under master contracts with the CPUC,
he managed the preparation of and also contributed EMF technical analyses to
Initial Studies and Mitigated Negative Declarations for the following PG&E 115 kV
substation and power line projects: the Vasona 230 kV-12 kV Substation in Los
Gatos; the Corona 115 kV-12 kV Substation in Petaluma; the FMC 230 kV-12 kV
Substation in San Jose; and the North San Jose Capacity Project in San Jose and
Santa Clara, including construction of a 230 kV power line and a 230 kV-12 kV
substation to provide secondary capacity to serve the rapid and substantial
industrial and growth in North San Jose.
Cellular Telephone Systems Environmental Review and Permitting. He
directed ESAs pioneering Cellular Telephone Systems Environmental Review and
Permitting work, which including preparation of Proponent's Environmental
Assessments (PEAs) for the use of the California Public Utilities Commission, as
well as environmental permit support for over two dozen individual cell sites for
proposed cellular radiotelephone systems in El Dorado, Sacramento, Napa,

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

Victoria Evans has more than 35 years of professional experience in energy,


carbon, climate, air quality, energy, environmental impact and sustainability
projects. As the prior Climate and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Services Practice Lead at
two major environmental consulting firms, Victoria directed more than
150 GHG/carbon footprint and energy analyses for major companies and federal
agencies as diverse as The Dow Chemical Company, U.S. Postal Service, Citgo,
Chevron, Valero, Marine Corps Installations-West, and Edwards Air Force Base.
She has also led the analysis of climate change impacts and adaptation for the
Keystone XL Pipeline, Port of San Francisco, and the Northeast Gas Association.
Her professional experience includes tenure in the public sector at the Electric
Power Research Institute, UC Davis, the Department of the Interior and the
National Park Service. With more than 60 technical papers and presentations to
her credit, Victoria is a frequently sought after speaker, instructor and panel
moderator.

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

geological formations. Additional impact analyses from upstream activities


[supply chain analyses of carbon and other emissions] were prepared and used to
support loan guarantee applications to US Dept of Energy.
Controls for Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions, Integrative Assessment of
Research on Atmospheric Mercury, US-wide, Electric Policy Research
Institute (EPRI). Project Manager. Ms. Evans led a team of senior scientists to
prepare an integrative assessment report covering the life cycle of mercury and
environmental impacts. She and the team evaluated and compiled research
conducted over 6 yrs on utility source characterization, mercury emissions
inventories, mercury fate and transport studies, alternative control scenarios for
mercury in air emissions, health exposure studies, and trends in power plant
source contributions over time.
Multi-media Toxics from Coal Combustion, Johannesburg, South Africa,
EPRI/Eskom. Manager. In consultation with Eskom, Ms. Evans developed a work
scope for a research project for application of software for mass balance of multimedia toxics in waste streams from coal-fired plants. She served as the contract
representative for two years, successfully managing project delivery.
Regional Air Quality Impacts on Ozone Levels of Coal-fired Power Generation,
Taipei, Taiwan, EPRI/Taiwan Power. Manager. Ms. Evans worked with tech staff
and utility scientists to develop the work scope for a successful three-year air
quality research study in Taiwan.
Analyses of Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) and GHG Emissions and Costs of Control, Multiple
Locations, Various Power Plants. Task Lead. Ms. Evans evaluated alternative
emissions controls and costs to meet BACT for NOx and CO for several power
plants in Nevada, including the Tracy Power Plant Expansion (Sierra Pacific Power
Company), an 80 Mw Simple Cycle Natural Gas Turbine (Nevada Power Company),
and a 1,000 Mw CCGT the Toquop Power Project (Toquop Power Energy, Inc.).
She conducted BACT analyses for NOx and CO controls and quantified GHG
reductions for over a dozen power plant repowering options in California and
Nevada. She conducted similar analyses or performed critical reviews for more
than 30 additional power projects in California fueled with LFG, biomass, natural
gas and coal.
PM10 Receptor Modeling, Seattle-Tacoma Area, WA, Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency. Principal Investigator. Ms. Evans led a study to determine the
relative contribution of various source types to high levels of PM10 at three sites in
the region. The results were used to design appropriate control strategies for the
State Implementation Plan in Washington. Speciation analyses of PM10 samples
were performed by Desert Research Institute under a subcontract.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Compliance


California Air Resource Board (ARB) Mandatory Reporting - GHG Monitoring
Plan Preparation, Six Oil and Gas Production Facilities, Chevron, San Joaquin
Valley, CA. Technical Lead. Over two hundred general stationary sources were
covered in six facility plans.

Victoria Evans
Page 3

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for USEPA, CITGO, 3 Refineries, TX and


LA. Project Manager. Ms. Evans led a team of 20 staff from across five states to
develop GHG Monitoring Plans, Inventory Management Plans, and a GHG
inventory for each refinery under the EPA MRR Subparts C and Y, as well as for
Subpart MM reporting of fuels. Her team also developed a customized database
tool in MS ACCESS for data collection, management and calculation for each
refinery.
Technical Advisor, Regulatory and Policy Analysis, California Air Resources
Board Preliminary Draft Rule for Cap and Trade for GHG and ARB Compliance
GHG Inventory. Marine Corps Installations West, California. Ms. Evans
provided technical advice and evaluation of the regulatory impacts upon
operations at Navy bases in California (cogeneration, landfills, boilers, heaters,
SF6 uses). Strategic issues were also identified and language developed for
comments submitted to the ARB.
Mandatory GHG Inventory and Reporting, GHG Management Strategy. Dow
Chemical Company, California Operations, Pittsburg, CA. Project Manager. Ms.
Evans led staff in an applicability assessment and gap analysis for Californias
AB32 GHG Reporting/Cap and Trade Program and the US EPAs GHG Mandatory
Reporting Rule. She and her staff conducted a policy and economic impact
analysis and drafted public comments/testimony that were submitted to the ARB.
Ms. Evans led a study of benchmarking the fuel efficiency at the plant, modeling of
future allowances, and identification of alternative carbon credit offsets for
purchase. She led staff efforts for the first mandatory reporting to ARB of GHG
emissions (CY2010), supported successful verification by a 3rd party verifier firm
and the first USEPA reporting into the eGGRT system.
National GHG Inventory, U.S. Postal Service, 50 States. Project Manager. Ms.
Evans led a team to prepare a verifiable annual GHG inventory for reporting to
The Climate Registry. In addition, her team prepared the first inventory for
reporting under Executive Order 13514 for Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions. The team
also evaluated Scope 3 GHG emissions from the supply chain and mail
distribution, and made recommendations for improvements. The GHG inventory
tracked fuel and energy use for over 30,000 buildings across the U.S and for
200,000 vehicles, the largest fleet in the world.
University of California Davis,Campus-wide GHG Emissions Inventory, Davis,
CA. Co-sponsor and Technical Advisor (staff). Ms. Evans co-sponsored and provided
technical advice to University operations staff conducting the first UCD campuswide GHG emissions inventory. The voluntary inventory was certified and filed
with the California Climate Action Registry. The inventory included power plants,
offices, classrooms, laboratories, a hospital, livestock and dairy cattle, a bus
system, a wastewater treatment plant, and a landfill (both LFG flaring/co-firing).
UCD serves almost 30,000 students and 26,500 UCD staff. Also, UCD operates five
major teaching and research facilities, three of which are located 100 miles or
more from the main campus.
Comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Edwards AFB, CA. Technical
Advisor. Ms. Evans provided advice and guidance in preparation of the first
comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory (Scopes 1 and 2) for the Base.

Victoria Evans
Page 4

The GHG inventory is verifiable by a third-party under protocols established by


the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the US EPA, and The Climate Registry.
Ms. Evans also supplied support in developing recommendations for compliance
with state and federal regulations while identifying cost-saving and other
streamlining measures.

Carbon Offset Projects


Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Evaluation Tool and Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Offset Project Opportunities, CA. Technical Advisor. Ms. Evans
provided advice to develop generic GHG emission inventory profiles for 14
potential greenhouse gas offset projects to develop verifiable GHG reduction
projects for the creation of credits and sale, primarily for voluntary reductions.
Carbon Offset Projects Assessment and Evaluation, MultipleLocations. Chief
Scientist and Director. Served as Chief Scientist and Director, Emission Reduction
Projects for start-up firm engaged in developing projects yielding carbon offset
and other environmental benefits. For 16 clients, evaluated potential projects
under 8 types of carbon offset protocols under domestic and international
protocols.

Climate Change, Adaptation and Risk Analysis


Climate Change: Sea Level Rise Evaluation and Mitigation Study, Port of San
Francisco, SanFrancisco, CA. Technical Advisor. Ms. Evans was a technical
advisor to the Port of San Francisco, who is responsible for the care and
maintenance of 7.5 miles of San Francisco Bay shoreline under the California
Tideland Trust. Ms. Evans served on a team to evaluate the potential need to
implement mitigation measures for the effects of sea water flooding and
increased wave action. Ms. Evans provided reviewed a synthesis of the results of
downscaled climate change modeling for the state of California along with
associated state agency policy recommendations/initiatives to address climate
change. Based upon these results, Ms. Evans advised hydraulic modelers in
providing an estimate of SLR and storm surge run-up as it relates to the San
Francisco Bay shoreline managed by the Port.
Methodology Development and Adaptation to Climate Change for Natural
Gas Local Distribution Company (LDC) Consortium, NYSEARCH. Northeast
U.S. GHG Task Lead. Ms. Evans led the team that evaluated climate change effects
on eight LDCs across eight northeastern states and developed a methodology to
assess impacts and risks for infrastructure, operations and business for
adaptation planning. This study was an initial high-level examination of climate
change effects and defined an adaptation analysis framework that encompassed
identifying, evaluating, and developing strategies to adapt to these climate
impacts. She developed an analytical adaptation framework model that
identified the climate changes, effects and secondary impacts and how these
would affect this industrys infrastructure. This model is for climate change
impact evaluation for risk assessment for infrastructure, business operations and
customers. Major climate impact areas were identified with risk assessment
applied in setting priorities for addressing impacts and assessing adaptation
options.

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

Wastewater Facility is undergoing a capital improvement program (CIP) in excess


of $1 billion dollars. Tim developed an air permitting schedule for this CIP that
identified the time required to obtain new source review and Title V permits for
various components of this program. Tim recently taught an air quality permitting
class for the Facilitys planners and engineers. This class included a detailed
discussion of best available control technologies and the effective uses of
emission offsets for wastewater treatment. Tim is also assisting the Facility in
obtaining air permits, which includes working closely with the project engineers
and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
AB2588 Health Risk Assessment - Port of Stockton, Stockton, CA. Project
Manager. Tim led the preparation of a toxic air contaminant (TAC) emission
inventory and health risk assessment (HRA) for emission sources operated by the
Port of Stockton. This analysis focused on sources located on both the Ports East
and West Complexes.
Digester Gas Feasibility Assessment. Southern California Gas Company,
Los Angeles, CA. Air Quality Analyst. Tim evaluated several options for using
digester and landfill gas generated by wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and
dairy farms located in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Tim examined the
feasibility of injecting gas into transmission pipelines, versus using that gas to
power motor vehicles or to generate electricity.
On-Call Air Quality for the Port of Stockton, San Joaquin County, CA. Project
Manager. Tim has managed several projects at the Port of Stockton. These have
included obtaining air permits and emission offsets for the Port and the Ports
tenants, conducting health risk assessments, and conducting special air quality
studies for Port activities. Tim evaluated the Ports existing emission sources to
determine compliance with permit conditions. Evaluated all existing air permits
to determine whether a Title V permit was warranted.
Ram Power Geothermal Project at the Geysers Sonoma County, CA. Project
Manager/Air Quality Technical Lead. Tim evaluated several approaches to reduce,
sequester, or offset GHG emissions from a proposed 35-megawatt geothermal
plant. GHG reductions were required by the projects conditional use permit
issued by Sonoma County. Tim also evaluated the benefits and potential markets
for selling bundled and unbundled renewable energy credits associated with
geothermal energy generation.
Lodi Gas ProjectCalifornia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Lodi, 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
Lodi, California. Permits from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
were obtained for the projects natural gas compressors and the glycol
dehydration system.
Granulated Slag Processing Air Permit - Lafarge North America. Stockton, CA.
Air Quality Technical Lead and Project Manager. Tim prepared the air permit
application for Lafarges proposed slag processing facility to be constructed at
the Port of Stockton, California. Tim worked closely with the San Joaquin Valley
Air District to provide all required permit information.
Winery Greenhouse Gas Technical Reports Sonoma County, CA. Air Quality
Technical Lead. Tim prepared greenhouse gas technical reports for several

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

Kirby Hills Underground Natural Gas Storage ProjectLodi Gas, Solano


County, CA. Air Quality Technical Lead. Tim prepared an air quality evaluation of a
proposed underground natural gas storage facility located in Solano County. The
analysis included an evaluation of the projects construction and operational
emissions, including the percentage of emissions that would occur within the
Yolo-Solano AQMD versus within the Bay Area AQMD. The air analysis focused on
emissions from well drilling, from natural gas compressors, and from the projects
glycol dehydration system.
Greencycle Project EIR - Sacramento County Department of Environmental
Review and Assessment. Sacramento, CA. Air Quality Technical Lead.
Tim prepared the air, odor, and greenhouse gas analysis of a proposed green
waste composting facility. This analysis was conducted for four proposed project
alternatives and included detailed air quality impact modeling.
West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Hazardous Waste Management Facility
Closure California Department of Toxic Substances, Sacramento, CA.
Air Quality Technical Lead. Tim prepared an air quality assessment for the closing
of the West Contra Costa sanitary landfill hazardous waste management facility.
The analysis included an evaluation of reactive organic and toxic air contaminant
emissions, and potential odor impacts.
Targa Resources Storage Facility - Port of Stockton. Stockton, CA. Air Quality
Technical Lead. Tim conducted internal review of a CEQA document that
evaluated a new fossil fuel handling and storage facility. Potential commodities
to be handled at the proposed facility included ultra-low-sulfur diesel, jet
propellant -5, ethanol, E-100, E-85, low-ethanol blends from E-5 to E-25, crude oil,
and biodiesel blends from B-5 to B-99.9 B 9000 soy biodiesel. Provided guidance
to the Port of Stockton on ways to strengthen the administrative draft CEQA
document before going public.
Edible Oil Processing, Transloading and Storage Facility Gavilon, Inc.
Stockton, CA. Air Quality Technical Lead. Tim led preparation of the air quality
and greenhouse gas analysis for a new edible oils processing and storage facility
proposed for the Port of Stockton. Tim worked with the San Joaquin Valley Air
District to ensure all permitting requirements were met in a timely manner.

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.

BARBARA TOOLE ONEIL, Q.E.P.


btooleoneil@adelanteconsulting.com or btooleoneil@gmail.com
EDUCATION
M.S., Chemical Engineering, University of Akron
B.S., Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon University
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
Registered, Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP)
Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM), Master Level
ANSI Assessor, ISO 14065 General Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Validation
and Verification Bodies
RELEVANT COAL EXPERIENCE
2013-2014 Mine Methane Capture Work Group for California Air Resources Board
2013
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Non-Renewables Work Group as a coal
expert.
2010 -P
Coal sector expert for CDM Coal Mine Methane Capture methodology under CDM,
projects were in China, India, Hungary, US and Canada.
2012
Assessor/validator/verifier VM001, Interception and Destruction of Fugitive
Methane from Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Seeps, v1.0
2011
Assessor/validator/verifier, VMR0002, Revisions to ACM0008 to Include Methane
Capture and Destruction from Abandoned Coal Mines, v1.0
2010
Coal resource assessment for the Czech Republic and Western Europe as part of
a permit review for a repowering project in Bohemia. (Prunerov)
2008
Mercury in coal assessment for western US coal basins for a major utility. The
purpose was to assess the current coal mercury concentration, the compliance
potential of the current equipment and the future coal mercury concentration and
compliance potential.
2006-7
Coal resource assessment as part of a permit for new coal-fired power generation
in the western US.
2001-2005 At EPA, coal specialist for permit reviews and negotiations for new and existing
power plants in the US.
2001-2006 Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO), Ohio Air Quality Development
Authority reviewed reports and proposals on a confidential basis.
1988-2001 At B&W and EPRI, global coal specialist with a focus on pre-and post- combustion
options for improving operational and environmental performance. Program
manager with USGS to develop the National Coal Quality Assessment, a national
resource database. Program manager of many power-plant projects including
projects in South Africa with a focus on fuels and fuel quality.
1987-1988 At B&W, lead engineer on an assessment to recover coal resources from
coal waste ponds in northern, and central Appalachia and Illinois, lead
engineer on assessment of coal cleaning processes for North American coal
resources to improve boiler performance.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Board of Directors, Pittsburgh Coal Conference (1996-2001)
Program Review Committee for University Research, Illinois Clean Coal Institute,
Illinois Department of Planning (1993-2001)
University Research Consortium, Ohio Coal Development Office, Ohio Department of

Page 1

Development, Chair (1993-1996), 1992-1998


Coal resource specialist to the National Forum on Environmental and Natural
Resources R&D, Sponsored by the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy and Agencies of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources,
National Science and Technology Council in cooperation with National Academy of
Science and National Academy of Engineering, cosponsored by the Carnegie
Commission on Science, Technology and Government and American Academy for
Advancement of Science, 1994

Selected Coal Publications


1. Mercury Concentration in Coal - Unraveling the Puzzle, B. Toole ONeil, S.J. Tewalt,
R.B.Finkelman, D.J. Akers, Fuel, 78, 1, p. 47-54, 1999.
2. A Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimation Methods for Use in GHG
Inventories, B. Toole ONeil, Electric Utilities Environmental Conference, Tucson, AZ, Jan
30, 2008
th

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

ONeil, EPRI AP_107036r, 1998.


19. Assessment of Coal Cleaning for Trace Element Control, B. Toole ONeil, EPRI TR111852, 1998.
20. Precombustion Control of Trace Metals in Coal, J. Pirkey, B. Toole ONeil, H. Brandon,
ESEERCO EP 96-07, 1998. .
21. Dry Scrubbing Technologies for Flue Gas Desulfurization, B. Toole ONeil, Ed., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1998.
22. Coal Cleaning for HAPS Control: Cost and Performance, D.J. Akers, Z. Zitron, B. Toole
ONeil, Proceedings: 23rdTechnical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems,
1998.
23. Engineering Guidelines for Pre-Combustion Control of Air Toxics, C.E. Raleigh, D.J.
Akers, G.S. Janik, B. Toole ONeil, Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 1998.
24. Trace Element Mineral Forms in Four Major U.S. Coal Basins: A TRI-Oriented Summary
of DOE/USGS Tests. B. Toole ONeil, D. Dunster, R. Myhre, EPRI TRI Technical
Resource Guide, http://www.epri.com, 1998.
25. Trace Element Mineral Forms in Four Major U.S. Coal Basins - A Summary, B. Toole
ONeil, G.A. Watkins, EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide, http://www.epri.com, 1998.
26. Barium Compounds - A Summary of the Petition To EPA Under EPCRA S. 313, B. Toole
ONeil, D. Choudhury, EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide, http://www.epri.com, 1998.
27. Mineral Forms of Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Ash, B. Toole ONeil, K. Finney, R.
Myhre, EPRI TRI Technical Resource Guide, http://www.epri.com, 1998.
28. The Use of Coal Cleaning for Trace Element Removal, C.E. Raleigh, D.J. Akers, B. Toole
ONeil, EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium, EPRI TR108683, 1997.
29. .PISCES: Power Plant Chemical Assessment Model - Version 2.0, Volume 1-2, B. Toole
ONeil, EPRI AP-107036, 1997.
30. The Feasibility of Coal and Oil Cleaning for Reduced Air Emissions, B. Toole ONeil, C. E.
Raleigh, D.J. Akers, H.B. Lange EFRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control
Symposium, EPRI TR-108683, 1997.
31. Precombustion Control of Air Toxics, D.J Akers, C. Harrison, M. Nowak, B. Toole ONeil,
PowerGen, 1997.
32. Use of the PISCES Database: Power Plant Aqueous Stream Compositions, in Clean
Water: Factors that Influence its Availability Quality and its Use, W. Chow Ed, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1996.
33. Coal laboratory Users Guide: An Engineers Look at Laboratory Analyses, B. Toole
ONeil, EPRI TR-106239, 1996.
34. The EPRI PISCES Database: Summary of Fuels Information, R.G. Wetherold, D.A. Orr,
J.M. Leonard, B. Toole ONeil, Proceedings: EPRl-DOE International Hazardous and
Particulate Air Pollutants, EPRI TR-105749,1995.
35. Precombustion Control Options for Air Toxics Removal, D.J. Akers, B. Toole ONeil,
Proceedings: The Economic & Environmental Aspects of Coal Utilization VI, 1995.
36. PISCES: Results from Field Sampling Programs, P. Chu, B. Toole ONeil, EPRI
Environmental Control Systems Update, 1995.
37. PISCES: Power Plant Chemical Assessment Model - Version 1.0, Volume 1-2, B. Toole
ONeil, EPRI AP-103930, 1995. .
38. Coal Cleaning: A Pre-Combustion Air Toxics Control Option, D.J. Akers, R.L. Dospoy,
C.E. Raleigh, B. Toole ONeil, American Chemical Society, 39, 2 p. 524, 1994.
39. Pre-Combustion Control Options for Air Toxics, B. Toole ONeil, D.J. Akers, Engineering
Foundation Conference, 1994.
40. Coal Cleaning: An Effective Method of Trace Element Removal, C. Raleigh, D. Akers, B.
Toole ONeil, Proceedings: 11th Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 1994.
41. Trace Element Reduction Through Coal Cleaning, D.J. Akers, B. Toole ONeil, EPRI Fuel
Supply Seminar, 1993.

Page 3

mrs

JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.


JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.

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

JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.

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

JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.

development, housing, commercial development, as well as a habitat conservation area for


the protection of the California Gnatcatcher, which is a Federally listed species. The
Specific Plan has focused on a number of possible development scenarios for the property.

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

JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.

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

JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.

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.

Safety and Risk Assessments

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

JOHN F. PEIRSON, JR.

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

From: Sabrina Glazbrook [mailto:sabrinaglazbrook@gmail.com]


Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Derryck, Erica
Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember Dan Kalb Seek Ban
on Coal, Citing Health & Safety Impacts

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/.

Would this be okay?

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

From: Sabrina Glazbrook [mailto:sabrinaglazbrook@gmail.com]


Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:31 AM

To: Derryck, Erica


Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember
Dan Kalb Seek Ban on Coal, Citing Health & Safety Impacts

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

From: Sabrina Glazbrook [mailto:sabrinaglazbrook@gmail.com]


Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:30 AM

To: Derryck, Erica


Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember
Dan Kalb Seek Ban on Coal, Citing Health & Safety Impacts

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

From: Sabrina Glazbrook [mailto:sabrinaglazbrook@gmail.com]


Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:24 AM

To: Derryck, Erica


Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember
Dan Kalb Seek Ban on Coal, Citing Health & Safety Impacts

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

From: Sabrina Glazbrook [mailto:sabrinaglazbrook@gmail.com]


Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Derryck, Erica
Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mayor Libby Schaaf & City Councilmember Dan Kalb Seek Ban
on Coal, Citing Health & Safety Impacts


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:

News from: Offices of the Mayor


Libby Schaaf & City
Councilmember Dan Kalb

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


June 27, 2016

Media Contacts:

Erica Terry Derryck


(510) 238-7072
ederryck@oaklandnet.com

Mayor Libby Schaaf & City


Councilmember Dan Kalb Seek Ban
on Coal, Citing Health & Safety
Impacts

OAKLAND, CA Today, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf


and City Councilmember Dan Kalb (District 1) announced
the introduction of an amendment to the City of Oaklands
Municipal Code that would prohibit the transport,
transloading, handling and storage of coal and petroleum
coke at bulk material facilities or terminals throughout

Oakland.

Office of Councilmember
Dan Kalb
(510) 238-7001

I am firmly committed to adopting the strongest health


and safety protections allowed by law, said Oakland
Mayor Libby Schaaf. As passionate stewards of the
environment who are committed to equity, Oaklanders
know that its a false choice to say we have to pick
between jobs and this communitys health and safety. We
can, and we will do both.

The coal proposal is co-sponsored by Mayor Schaaf and


Councilmember Kalb who is carrying the legislation. The
item will be heard at a special meeting of the Oakland
City Council on June 27, 2016.

For most of my adult life, I have fought for environmental


justice and smart climate policy, said Oakland
Councilmember Dan Kalb. Oakland cannot afford to
ignore the scientific evidence that clearly show the
harmful effects and risk associated with coal. With this
new law, were taking the steps needed to protect our
community, our workers, and our planet.

Councilmember Dan Kalb commissioned a


comprehensive health and safety report to examine the
local impacts and risks of coal and petroleum on the
health and safety of residents and the environment.

The report by Dr. Zoe Chafe, MPH, Ph.D., outlines the


characteristics of coal and its components, the human
health effects and safety risks, the health effects and
safety risks of coal or petcoke in Oakland, information on
coal-related emergencies, challenges with coal dust
mitigation proposals, harms associated with Transpacific
pollution from East Asia to the Bay Area, and finally,
some of the global and regional effects of burning coal,
including global warming.

Mayor Schaaf oversaw the Administrations analysis of the


health and worker safety impacts of coal put forward in a

study conducted by Environmental Science Associates.

###

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

From: Darwin BondGraham [mailto:Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com]


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 5:11 PM
To: Derryck, Erica
Subject: Re: Why no public health researchers to study coal?

Monday 9am at the latest.


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.

From: "Derryck, Erica" <EDerryck@oaklandnet.com>


Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:46 PM
To: mac <Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com>
Subject: RE: Why no public health researchers to study coal?

Whats your deadline

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

From: Darwin BondGraham [mailto:Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com]


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 4:43 PM
To: Derryck, Erica
Subject: Why no public health researchers to study coal?

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.

The ESA contract is coming back to the council on May 3 (https://oakland.legistar.com/


LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2683501&GUID=9D49543A-C745-40FD-B5DE-842793F14CA6&
Options=&Search=)

Whats different now?

Hows the ESA contract an appropriate way to study this now?

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

Você também pode gostar