Nov 17, 2015, 2:30pm PST

The Port of Oakland has picked industrial developer CenterPoint Properties as a partner to build a logistics facility as part of the $500 million redevelopment of the former West Oakland army base.
​
The Port and Oak Brook, Ill.-based Centerpoint Properties have signed a six-month exclusive negotiating contract, with plans to build a 20-acre facility to transfer cargo from trains to ships. The project is part of the Seaport Logistics Complex, which will encompass 170 acres and would be the largest logistics center at a West Coast port.

The Port's project is separate from the nearby Oakland Global Trade and Logistics Center, developed by Phil Tagami's California Capital & Investment Group's. That project has drawn opposition from environmentalists and city officials after tenant Terminal Logistic Solutions was found to be negotiating with Utah counties to ship coal through the facility.

“We’re pleased to engage with one of the most respected names in industrial development,” said John Driscoll, the Port of Oakland's maritime director, in a statement. “And we’re excited to realize our vision for the Seaport Logistics Complex."

Separately, the Port of Oakland reported that imports dropped by 3.3 percent in October, an unexpected decline during a historically busy season.

Centerpoint owns over 50 million square feet of industrial properties around the U.S. It also owns the 190-acre CenterPoint Intermodal Center-Manteca in Manteca.

Roland Li covers real estate and economic development

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2015/11/port-of-oakland-centerpoint-army-base-shipping.html​

OAKLAND -- It seems an unlikely match: Oakland -- with its booming new tech economy and position as a leader in fighting climate change -- could become the largest coal exporter on the West Coast.


That's the strange possibility facing this East Bay city, which must soon decide its next move. Officials in the past two months have combed over thousands of documents to determine whether they can legally oppose coal shipments from a city-owned bulk commodities terminal being constructed on the old Oakland Army Base. A potential City Council vote could come in December or early next year, but the jury is still out on whether the city has the power to block the plan.Assistant City Administrator Claudia Cappio said the city is hiring consultants to help interpret the mammoth amount of testimony and evidence gathered at a September hearing on coal before making recommendations to the council.

"We have to make sure whatever we come up with will stand up, and we need to base it on substantial evidence in the record," she said.

The city's answer might just be buried in the agreement developer Phil Tagami signed with the city in 2012. City officials opposing coal believe a short clause in the lengthy contract gives them a legal trump card to reject it -- the right to regulate public health.

The city can step in if the development puts "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," according to Section 3.4.2 of the agreement.

Activists say the new terminal could draw trainloads of between 5 million and 10 million metric tons of coal from Utah to Oakland, before being loaded onto ships bound for Asia. Complicating any legal questions, however, are the political implications of challenging one of the city's most active, connected players.

Tagami, a former port commissioner with deep personal and business ties to Gov. Jerry Brown, won the contract to oversee the city's portion of the Army Base redevelopment to transform about 160 acres adjacent to the Port of Oakland into a $500 million logistics center with new shipping terminals and warehouses.

He senses an opportunity as the U.S. coal industry searches for more West Coast export terminals with easy access to countries that rely on fossil fuels for energy. Four Utah counties are prepared to invest $53 million into the new $250 million commodities terminal Tagami is planning with partner Terminal Logistics Solutions.

Tagami has claimed that because his contract doesn't expressly prohibit coal, the city has no right to restrict his business. He has said the coal cars would be covered, reducing or eliminating the local threat of airborne pollutants.
He could sue if the city interferes.

Coal, like all legal commodities shipped by rail, is regulated by the federal government, but Stuart Flashman, a land-use attorney who has worked with opponents of the proposed high-speed rail in California, said that while the courts wouldn't allow Oakland to regulate federal railroads, the city should have the right to choose which commodities it accepts on its own land.

It would be different if Tagami were the private owner of a terminal, Flashman said. That's the case in Richmond, where private operators of the Levin-Richmond terminal export under 2 million metric tons of coal shipped from Utah and Colorado every year (Stockton and Long Beach are the two other active coal-shipping terminals in California, with annual exports for each under 2 million tons).

The city's first step in its fight against coal was holding a public health hearing in September. Environmentalists, academics and health officials, including Alameda County's public health officer, gave statements about the regional and local health crisis, especially in West Oakland neighborhoods adjacent to the port and freeways, where data show that children are twice as likely to suffer from respiratory illnesses.

Cappio said Oakland has a long history of industrial commerce, but the city must analyze how to become more competitive without exposing residents to potential harm.

"The port has always been a big part of the Oakland economy," Cappio said. "How do we reduce the historical impacts to communities, particularly in West Oakland?"

Activists have already sued Tagami and the city, saying a new environmental review of the bulk terminal project is necessary before the project continues.
Mayor Libby Schaaf and several outraged City Council members have spoken out against coal shipments, citing the health threats from coal dust transported locally and global climate change from burning fossil fuels.

And some city officials have accused Tagami -- who publicly stated that coal wasn't among the commodities he was planning to export until his plans were exposed in April -- of using bullying tactics and his local connections to endanger a cornerstone economic project for the city.

Councilman Dan Kalb, the council member most outspoken against the plan, said Tagami's team, which includes former port executive directors Omar Benjamin and Jerry Bridges, is running a campaign to convince city officials they have no legal standing, an opinion Kalb rejects.

"They're trying to scare the council, placate us, to try to make us feel like we have no other options except to go his way," he said.

Tagami declined to comment about the project, citing the lawsuit.

Public statements and political posturing aside, it remains unclear how hard the council might fight against the hometown developer, whose resume of accomplishments includes the historic Fox Theater and Rotunda building renovations -- back when folks weren't lining up at City Hall to invest in Oakland.

"There are some people in the city who feel like Phil should be able to get whatever he wants, and the city should step back and let him do his thing," said one city official with direct knowledge of the issue but who requested anonymity because of the lawsuit.

There's a chance that Oakland officials never will have to make a decision. The proposed funding from Utah is reportedly under investigation by that state's attorney general, and Earthjustice's lawsuit against Oakland will move forward regardless how the council votes.

Brian Beveridge, a founder of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, thinks the council has enough evidence to uphold its 2014 resolution to oppose crude oil and coal trains.

"This doesn't help our community, doesn't help the globe and it's not what the people want," Beveridge said.

If 5 million to 10 million tons of coal were shipped through the new terminal, it would mean the equivalent of six to 10 coal trains traveling through Oakland per day, according to Dan Jaffe, a professor of atmospheric and environmental chemistry at the University of Washington who has studied the impacts of coal trains passing through his state to Canada.

Studies on the health effects of coal dust from rail transport aren't definitive, Jaffe said, although there has been evidence of coal dust getting into the air and water around terminals and tracks where coal is shipped.

Jaffe was unaware of any data on how covered rail cars might prevent coal dust from escaping. He said there are more studies done on exposure to industrial pollutants such as diesel fuel.

"It's a question of degrees," he said. "Is any one source going to be absolutely the killer source?"

Just how committed Tagami is to coal to make the project pencil out is unknown. But a new environmental review, a lengthy process that could delay completion of the project, is something no one wants. Kalb said he hopes Tagami is looking at other commodities instead of coal.

"Every day he doesn't is a wasted day," Kalb said.

Activists also aren't sure Tagami would kill a project he spent millions on by anchoring himself to coal, said Jess Dervin-Ackerman, conservation manager at the San Francisco Bay chapter of the Sierra Club, which helped expose the coal plan.

"He's developed monumental projects that are significant to the community," she said. "Is coal the last thing he's going to fight for?"
​
Mike Blasky covers Oakland City Hall. Contact him at 510-208-6429. Follow him atTwitter.com/blasky.

​http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_29092444/oakland-can-it-stop-coal-trains

A thick blanket of smoke has obscured the proposition to loan $53 million in state money to a private company for access to an unbuilt port in Oakland — coal smoke.

The project had shown up on the Utah Permanent Community Impact Board's agenda last April simply as "Infrastructure — Throughput Capacity." And when Utah's four largest coal-producing counties pushing the loan made their pitch at that meeting, they didn't even use the word "coal."
​
Instead, the backers spent most of their time talking about how the port contract would help move "Utah products," including alfalfa and salt. (If Utah put every hay cube it exports through that port, it would be around two percent of the port's capacity. Utah's loan is intended to fund one-fifth of the $275 million project.) There was also mention of potash, which none of the four counties even produce.

When one Sevier County commissioner identified the real motivation behind the project, he spoke only of his county's "energy" products. The port would be a bulk facility for dry commodities. Everyone in the room knew there is only one dry energy product, but no one used the word.
​
And that is what passed for a public process.

There was no mention of the fact that the city of Oakland has a policy that opposes the shipment of fossil fuels through its ports, and lawsuits could ensue. There is no guarantee the port will be completed, and it's unclear how the loan would be collateralized.

Nor was there discussion of the reason Utah coal producers are scrambling for a cheaper path to international markets: The domestic market for coal is falling with little sign of recovery. Rocky Mountain Power wants to accelerate depreciation of its Utah coal assets, and the Intermountain Power Project, another huge consumer of Utah coal, is switching to natural gas.

That might have led to inquiries about future coal supply and demand worldwide. (Demand is rising in Asia, where developing nations are still building coal-fired power plants, but so is supply from coal producers who are much closer than Utah.)

And maybe that would have led to a discussion about the greenhouse effect. The oceans are rising because humans keep pumping carbon into the air. This project would ship global warming's raw material to countries that are understandably eager for electric power but are less eager to add expensive pollution controls.

But none of that discussion happened, and that was intended because a majority of the board was in on the smokescreen. Instead, they went ahead and approved the loan — even before any formal application had been received and with full knowledge that it may not even be legal. This fund comes from mineral royalties and is intended to mitigate the impact of mineral extraction, but this project would spend money out of state to create more impact, with the hope of generating more funds. It's a pyramid-scheme approach to mitigation, and the Utah Attorney General's office has yet to sign off even though it has had months to do so.

The merits of this project are highly questionable, but it's the process that really stinks.
​
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3133590-155/editorial-coal-port-scheme-lives-in

​By David Irvine
First Published Nov 06 2015 05:30PM 

In Piute County this year, the town of Circleville received $835,250 from Utah's Permanent Community Impact Fund to build a medical center to serve its roughly 500 residents.

For Kanab in Kane County, the fund provided a $680,000 grant and a similar loan to mitigate the risk of floods in Tom's Canyon.

Castle Dale in Emery County received $3,585,000 in grants and loans from the fund to build a new city hall.
​
All across Utah, projects supported by the state's Community Impact Fund have enhanced the safety, security and quality of life in communities affected by mineral extraction.

Utah coal brings Oakland activists to a boil
​
By John Hollenhorst   |  Posted Nov 3rd, 2015 @ 11:00pmOAKLAND, Calif. — A hot controversy has been boiling around San Francisco Bay for months and it's all focused on the state of Utah. The issue: Should Oakland's waterfront become a gateway for Utah coal that's headed for overseas power plants?
At angry street demonstrations earlier this year, activists chanted "No coal in Oakland!" and "Stop coal now!" They argued that Utah coal exports will aggravate the international problem of climate change.
At a jam-packed public hearing weeks ago, residents of nearby neighborhoods complained to the Oakland City Council about health issues. "Asthma exacerbation, emergency room visits," one resident intoned, claiming the Utah coal will threaten the neighborhood with toxic dust.
But to four counties in Central Utah, the port proposal means jobs and an economic future for Utah's troubled coal country.
"It could shore up our economies for the next 66 years," said Carbon County Commissioner Jae Potter, "and do it in a world-class facility that is very conscious as far as the environmental issues."
San Francisco Bay is already home-port for many Utah exports, but the prospect of coal coming by rail from Utah has stirred up a big fight. Residents of Oakland are, by no means, unanimously opposed. At the city council hearing, construction workers wore T-Shirts proclaiming, "I support Oakland jobs." Many residents believe the project will give an economic boost to troubled neighborhoods.
In fact, a local minister, Pastor Kevin Barnes of Oakland's Abyssinian Missionary Baptist Church seemed to be preaching to the critics.
"You mean to tell me," he said to the crowded council chamber, "with all of this cocaine that's around here, that's killing our young men, you're worried about coal?"
Proponents say the proposed facility will be a net plus for Oakland.
"We will be viewed as an enhancement to the community, not a detriment," said Jerry Bridges, C.E.O. of Terminal Logistics Solutions. His company will run a new bulk-shipping facility if it ever gets built.
"Anything that ships in bulk, we will have the capability of shipping here," Bridges said.
Most export goods leave the Port of Oakland in big truck-sized containers that are loaded onto gigantic cargo ships. But the port currently doesn't have a facility for handling the kinds of commodities that are typically shipped in bulk. Developers are planning to build a large bulk terminal on the grounds of the defunct Oakland Army Base at the foot of the Bay Bridge connecting the city to San Francisco. The bulk terminal would be capable of transferring bulk-goods quickly — in large volumes — from rail cars to the holds of ships.

(KSL-TV)Money from Utah is a key ingredient in the development package. The four Utah counties — Carbon, Emery, Sevier and Sanpete — arranged a 53 million dollar loan from Utah's Community Impact Fund Board which disburses funds from federal mineral royalties. The loan is essentially an investment, a share in the $250 million dollar project, to guarantee the counties' use of the facility for shipping Utah's commodity exports.
Supporters of the project — in Oakland and in Utah — have deliberately tried to downplay the coal issue. They point out that the proposed facility could also handle Utah export commodities like potash, hay, grains, and salt. But coal is expected to account for at least half of their shipping business.
"Why wouldn't any inland state be interested in having a port capacity?" said Potter, who is spearheading the project on behalf of the four Utah counties. He said the counties would get a share of the revenues from the Oakland shipping facility, allowing them to pay back the loan over 30 years and possibly earning a surplus for the counties.
Potter said the coal mining areas of Central Utah have been hard-hit by a recent downturn in the domestic coal business. The nation has turned more and more to natural gas and to renewable energy, largely for environmental reasons. Potter said about 400 jobs were lost in the Price area recently due to the shutdown of Pacificorp's Carbon Power Plant and the closure of a nearby mine.
"The use of coal is being attacked on many fronts," Potter said. "We have a very high-quality, ultra-clean coal in this area. Every ton of coal that is shipped overseas is going to have a minimizing effect in developing countries as far as pollution goes."
But critics are not appeased by such claims.
"My message for Utah? We don't need (it). I want you to keep your money," said activist Margaret Gordon, founder of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. "We are really worried about elevated, more, asthma."
"We think there will be no dust," Bridges said, promising that the coal cars coming from Utah will be covered and the bulk terminal itself will be enclosed to contain any potential dust. That claim is scoffed at by critics who say they have never seen a legally enforceable commitment from developers to contain the dust.
For many opponents, the biggest issue is that Utah would be exporting millions of tons of climate-changing carbon dioxide.
"Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel that we have on Earth," said Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. "And it's the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. And so we know that we need to leave coal especially in the ground."
The Oakland City Council could stop the project because the defunct Army base is now city property. A decision is expected in early December. Even then, the project's future may be clouded by a lawsuit filed by the environmental group Earthjustice.
"I think it is a dirty and dangerous commodity," said Earthjustice attorney Irene Gutierrez. "Before any exports happen, the city needs to do the environmental review that's required by law."
The project also faces a legal challenge in Utah. Opponents argue that the loan from Utah's Community Impact Fund is illegal because the fund is supposed to be used for the benefit of communities, not for helping specific businesses.
The four counties dispute that interpretation. The loan is under review by the Utah Attorney General's office.


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37222875&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-7

For Immediate Release, November 2, 2015
Contact:Jess Dervin-Ackerman, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, (510) 693-7677, [email protected]
April Thomas, Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, (206) 321-3850, [email protected] 
Dick Cumiskey, Sevier Citizens for Clean Air & Water, (435) 527-4448, [email protected] 
Aaron Paul, Grand Canyon Trust, (303) 477-1486, [email protected] 
Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9622, [email protected] 
Wendy Park, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 844-7138, [email protected]

Community Groups Challenge Utah Funding for Proposed Oakland Coal Export Terminal
Utah Attorney General Asked to Reject Proposal to Use Public Funds
OAKLAND, Calif.— The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice sent a letter to Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes today urging him to invalidate $53 million in state payments in support of a scheme to export millions of tons of coal from Utah and send it through a proposed bulk terminal in Oakland, Calif.

The project, known as the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, is being built by a group of developers led by Prologis CCIG Oakland Global LLC. After years of assurances that coal would not be transported through the bulk terminal, in April 2015 Oakland community members learned that the developers had secretly cut a funding deal with four Utah counties that would bring coal into Oakland.

“Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment believe that it is morally and legally wrong for Utah's CIB to be using these funds to prop up a dying, dirty energy market,” said Tim Wagner, executive director of UPHE. “We hope that the attorney general will do the right thing to protect Utahns from this health risk and financial fallacy.”

In exchange for $53 million in “community impact board” (CIB) funding, the Utah counties would be guaranteed shipping rights to at least 4 million to 5 million tons of the bulk terminal’s 9 million to 10 million ton annual shipping capacity. Utah officials have stated that they intend to use this capacity to export coal to overseas markets. This development followed a number of public statements by CCIG’s President and CEO, Phil Tagami, that the company had no interest in the pursuit of coal operations at the former Oakland Army Base.

“This is a raw deal for Utah from every angle,” said Aaron Paul, staff attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust. “It shouldn’t take an opinion from the attorney general for the CIB to see that it shouldn’t be promoting more coal mining in Utah by building a California seaport with money that is supposed to be spent in Utah’s communities to offset coal mining’s burdens on those communities.”
Utah’s board approved the $53 million in funding as a loan in April, but made approval contingent on a legal opinion by Attorney General Reyes supporting the board’s actions. To date Reyes has not officially released an opinion.

The letter to Attorney General Reyes asserts that the board does not have the authority to make the risky loan. Utah law requires that board funds be used in Utah, that funds benefit the public and not be a pass-through to a private venture, and that the funds mitigate impacts from fossil fuel production. The $53 million loan meets none of these criteria. Board funds will be used to benefit California developers and out-of-state mining companies, not the Utah public, and will encourage more coal mining, rather than alleviating mining’s impacts.

“The only people who stand to benefit from this misuse of Utah public funds are the terminal’s California developers and out-of-state mining companies, not Utah residents,” said Jessica Yarnall Loarie, staff attorney with the Sierra Club Law Program. “Those private benefits will come at the expense of local communities and the environment. Utah’s misuse of CIB funds for coal exports will worsen the problems of fossil fuel extraction that the funds are intended to mitigate.”

Dick Cumiskey, president of Sevier Citizens for Clean Air & Water, noted that his group favored using these funds as they were intended, such as “for road maintenance, school improvements, and for necessary additions to the sheriff’s department and for EMT upgrades.” “This possible CIB loan smells,” Cumiskey said. “The possible default and payback directly impacts the taxpayers of Sevier County. We firmly believe this is an illegal loan and that its use for a private party outside of Utah is incomprehensible. We welcome the AG’s intervention.”

In addition, the letter states that the board’s process in approving these funds appears to have been rushed to avoid taxpayer scrutiny. No advance public hearing was held on this matter despite a legal requirement to do so in non-emergency situations. CIB approved the loan without an application and based on only a power point presentation.  One of the counties submitted a skeletal application weeks after the loan’s approval and only in response to CIB’s request to the counties for a loan application. 

“Utah officials' hasty approval process violated the law and ignored the harmful effects of coal transport and combustion on our health and climate. While the rest of the world is moving away from this dirty fossil fuel to cleaner energy sources, Utah residents could be stuck with more mining pollution, more health problems, and a $53 million bill,” said Wendy Park, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. 

The letter also raises questions about the role of Jeffrey Holt, an investment banker who is both the proponent of the loan for the Utah counties and chair of Utah’s Transportation Commission. Holt was also a board member just a few months before asking the board to approve the huge loan. Questions have been raised as to whether Holt’s private bank employer has a financial stake in the loan.

“We hope Attorney General Reyes will ask some tough questions about the rush to send Utah’s money to California,” said Ted Zukoski, an attorney at Earthjustice.

Community groups signing the letter include West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Sevier Citizens for Clean Air & Water, Inc., Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance, HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, Communities for a Better Environment , San Francisco Baykeeper, Oakland Education Association, California Interfaith Power & Light, No Coal in Oakland, Sunflower Alliance, Beacon Presbyterian Fellowship, St. John's Presbyterian Church, Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project, Climate Workers, 350 Bay Area, Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice.
###
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 900,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/oakland-coal-export-terminal-11-02-2015.html