Oakland, CA: Difference between revisions

From Voices in the Dust
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


Coal dust became a flashpoint in Oakland beginning in the early 2010s, when developers unveiled plans to redevelop the derelict Oakland Army Base as the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT)—originally proposed for low‑dust cargo like wind turbines or grain. But around 2014–15, it emerged that Utah coal interests had quietly agreed to ship up to 9–10 million tons of coal per year through Oakland, prompting alarm over toxic coal dust settling across West Oakland and nearby rail corridors (Sierra Club).
Better Intro


In response, the [https://nocoalinoakland.info/ No Coal in Oakland] movement formed, uniting local environmental justice groups (like the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project), labor unions (e.g. ILWU), health experts, youth activists, faith leaders, and groups such as Sierra Club, Communities for a Better Environment, Baykeeper and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. They held massive hearings, colorful art‑infused protests, testimony, and rallies to demand that Oakland reject coal exports for the sake of public health, climate justice, and local jobs.
== Background ==


By late June 2016, under this pressure, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban the handling, storage, and transport of coal (and petroleum coke) within the city—including through OBOT—citing risks to air quality, asthma, heart and respiratory disease, and environmental equity for West Oakland communities.
 
In the early 2010s, developers unveiled plans to redevelop the Oakland Army Base as the [http://obotjv.com/ Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT)], originally proposing transportation of low‑dust cargo like wind turbines or grain.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725021435/https://www.kqed.org/news/11641853/oakland-heads-to-trial-over-coal-ban Siler, T. (2018, January 16). ''Oakland, Port Developer Head to Trial in Dispute Over Coal Ban''. Kqed.org; KQED.]
 
[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725021435/https://www.kqed.org/news/11641853/oakland-heads-to-trial-over-coal-ban ‌]</ref> In the December 2013 Oakland Army Base newsletter, developer Phil Tagami promised not to export coal through the Oakland Bulk and Oversized terminal, writing: <blockquote>"It has come to my attention that there are community concerns about a purported plan to develop a coal plant or coal distribution facility as part of the Oakland Global project. This is simply untrue. [...] CCIG is publicly on record as having no interest or involvement in the pursuit of coal-related operations at the former Oakland Army Base."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725015929/https://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/coalfreeoakland Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.]</ref>  </blockquote>Tagami made the same commitment in private meetings with the Sierra Club, elected officials, and others.
 
In 2015, it emerged that the terminal had quietly agreed to ship up to 10 million tons of coal per year through Oakland.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725021712/https://oaklandside.org/2025/06/30/oakland-loses-appeal-in-coal-legal-battle/ Wolfe, E. ''Oakland loses appeal in coal legal battle''. The Oaklandside. June 30, 2025‌]</ref> In response, the [https://nocoalinoakland.info/ No Coal in Oakland] movement formed, uniting local environmental justice groups (like the [https://woeip.org/ West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project]), labor unions (e.g. [https://www.ilwu.org/ ILWU]), health experts, youth activists, faith leaders, and groups such as [https://www.sierraclub.org/ Sierra Club], [https://www.cbecal.org/ Communities for a Better Environment,] [https://baykeeper.org/ Baykeeper,] and [https://apen4ej.org/ Asian Pacific Environmental Network]. They held massive hearings, protests, and rallies to demand that Oakland reject coal exports for the sake of public health, climate justice, and local jobs. By late June 2016, under community pressure, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban the handling, storage, and transport of coal (and petroleum coke) within the city (including the OBOT) citing risks to air quality, asthma, heart and respiratory disease, and environmental equity for West Oakland communities.  
 
Since 2016, the movement against the coal terminal in Oakland has taken shape in the case ''Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland,'' in both state and federal courts. In both cases, the City of Oakland lost to OBOT, dealing a blow to the movement. However, activists have not given up and continue to be vocal in their opposition.
[[File:Oakland, Port Developer Head to Trial in Dispute Over Coal Ban.jpg|thumb|352x352px|Activists opposed to a coal facility in Oakland rally outside U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Jan. 10, 2018. ''(Tara Siler/KQED)'']][[File:5 peeps at city hall.jpg|thumb|351x351px|From [https://nocoalinoakland.info/our-campaign/ No Coal In Oakland], 5 organizers stand in front of the Oakland City Hall. ]]


== Litigation ==
== Litigation ==


=== Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland (Case No. 16-CV-7014) (2016–2020) ===
=== 2016-2020: Federal District Court ===


* In December 2016, OBOT (Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal) sued Oakland alleging breach of the 2013 Development Agreement after the City passed an ordinance and resolution banning coal handling at the proposed terminal.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725015929/https://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/coalfreeoakland Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.]</ref>
* In December 2016, OBOT (Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal) sued Oakland alleging breach of the 2013 Development Agreement after the City passed an ordinance and resolution banning coal handling at the proposed terminal.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725015929/https://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/coalfreeoakland Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.]</ref>
* A federal district court held a bench trial in early 2018 and concluded Oakland lacked “substantial evidence” to show the coal operation posed a significant health or safety risk. It described the City’s reports as “riddled with inaccuracies, major evidentiary gaps, erroneous assumptions, and faulty analyses”
* A federal district court held a trial in January 2018 and concluded Oakland lacked “substantial evidence” to show the coal operation posed a significant health or safety risk. The court ruled that the City’s coal ban violated the Development Agreement and declared it invalid.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725020317/https://nocoalinoakland.info/our-campaign/ Our Campaign. No Coal in Oakland. ‌2018.]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725021827/https://eastbayexpress.com/judge-rules-in-favor-of-oakland-coal-project-2-1/ BondGraham, D. ''Judge Rules in Favor of Oakland Coal Project | East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda''. East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda. May 15, 2018.]</ref>
* The court ruled that the City’s coal ban violated the Development Agreement and declared it invalid.
* On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, affirming the lower court’s standard of review and finding
* On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, affirming the lower court’s standard of review and finding
[[File:Portofoakland-qut-1020x675.jpg|thumb|352x352px|A container ship docked in a berth at the Port of Oakland on Feb. 11, 2015, in Oakland. ''(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)'']]
=== 2018–2025: State Court  (2018–2025) ===
* After the federal decision, OBOT’s Ground Lease required the City and OBOT to hit specified development milestones by August 14, 2018. When the City terminated the lease for missing that deadline, OBOT (and its subtenant OGRE) sued in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming the City’s obstruction and the prior coal ban triggered force majeure rights and breached implied duties of good faith.
* In the initial part of the trial, the liability phase in October 2023, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Noël Wise sided with the developers, finding the City liable for breach of contract.  She concluded the City's delays and refusal to cooperate prevented OBOT from meeting its obligations and triggered six separate force majeure events, including passage of the coal ban itself, failure to execute a rail access agreement, and not completing public improvements.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725181323/https://www.sierraclub.org/sfbay/blog/2024/03/despite-trial-decision-hope-remains-keep-coal-out-oakland Klein, J. Despite Trial Decision, Hope Remains to Keep Coal Out of Oakland. March 29, 2024.] </ref>
* In January 2024, during the remedy phase, Judge Wise ruled against developers seeking nearly $160 million from the city, claiming lost profits after the city terminated its ground lease for the terminal. The judge instead agreed with attorneys for the city, who argued the group’s projected profits were speculative.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725180737/https://www.kqed.org/news/11973469/judge-denies-developers-160-million-suit-against-oakland-in-ongoing-coal-terminal-battle Johnson, S. Judge Denies Developer's $160 Million Suit Against Oakland in Ongoing Coal Terminal Battle. January 23, 2024.]</ref>
=== June 2025: California Court of Appeal ===
* The City appealed Judge Wise's decision. On June 27, 2025, the First Appellate District affirmed Judge Wise’s ruling.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725022957/https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/a169585.html ''Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland''. Justia Law. 2025.]</ref> The court rejected the City’s arguments regarding the force majeure clause, implied covenant limits, claim preclusion, and OGRE’s right to sue. It concluded OBOT and OGRE were entitled to relief, and that the lease termination was improper.<ref>[https://voicesinthedust.org/File:Opinion-by-DCA.pdf Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO. June 27, 2025.]</ref>
* The victory in court reopened the possibility of reviving terminal development for OBOT.
* As of July 1, 2025, The City may seek review of the Court of Appeal’s decision by the California Supreme Court.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725015639/https://nocoalinoakland.info/city-loses-appeal-in-state-court-lawsuit/ City Loses Appeal in State Court Lawsuit. No Coal in Oakland. July 1, 2025.] </ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725183317/https://uscoalexports.org/2020/06/16/oakland-effort-to-block-fossil-fuel-exports-suffers-second-judicial-setback/ Oakland Effort To Bloick Fossil-Fuel Exports Suffers Second Judicial Setback. 2020.] </ref>


=== State Court Litigation: ''OBOT/OGRE v. City of Oakland'' (2018–2025) ===
== No Coal In Oakland ==
According to their website, "No Coal in Oakland is a grassroots organization campaigning to stop the threat of coal being transported by rail into Oakland for export overseas".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725020317/https://nocoalinoakland.info/our-campaign/ Our Campaign. No Coal in Oakland. ‌2018.]</ref>


* After the federal decision, OBOT’s Ground Lease required the City and OBOT to hit specified development milestones by August 14, 2018. When the City terminated the lease for missing that deadline, OBOT (and its subtenant OGRE) sued in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming the City’s obstruction and the prior coal ban triggered force majeure rights and breached implied duties of good faith No Coal in Oakland+2Justia Law+2No Coal in Oakland+2.
* specific things that the movement did to organize people
* The trial (bifurcated) covered both liability and remedies. In '''October 2023''', Judge Noël Wise found Oakland liable for breach of contract and implied covenant. She concluded the City's delays and refusal to cooperate prevented OBOT from meeting its obligations and triggered six separate force majeure events—including passage of the coal ban itself, failure to execute a rail access agreement, and not completing public improvements Oakland City Attorney+6Justia Law+6Justia Law+6.
* In '''January 2024''', she reinstated OBOT’s lease, extended performance deadlines by 2½ years, and denied OBOT’s $159.6 million damage claim—but granted equitable relief to resume development No Coal in Oakland+2No Coal in Oakland+2No Coal in Oakland+2.


=== California Court of Appeal (Decision issued June 27, 2025) ===
see: https://nocoalinoakland.info/online-resources-for-researching-the-proposed-west-gateway-coal-terminal/


* The City appealed that decision. On June 27, 2025, the First Appellate District affirmed Judge Wise’s ruling. The court rejected the City’s arguments regarding the force majeure clause, implied covenant limits, claim preclusion, and OGRE’s right to sue. It concluded OBOT and OGRE were entitled to relief, and that the lease termination was improper.<ref>[https://voicesinthedust.org/File:Opinion-by-DCA.pdf Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO. June 27, 2025.]</ref>
The activism against coal dust in Hampton Roads and the No Coal in Oakland campaign both center [[Community Activism and Concerns|community-driven efforts]] to protect [[Health impacts: particles and coal dust|public health]] from the dangers of coal pollution. Like Hampton Roads, West Oakland has a disproportionately high rate of respiratory illness and other physical ailments, which is linked to its close proximity to the Port of Oakland, as well as truck and rail traffic.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725022401/https://oaklandexplore.com/west-oakland-air-pollution-trends-20-years-of-data-health-impacts-demographic-shifts/ oaklandexplore. (2025, June 11). ''West Oakland Air Pollution Trends: 20 Years of Data, Health Impacts & Demographic Shifts - Oakland Explore''. Oakland Explore.] </ref>
* Although OBOT lost on its monetary damages claim, the victory in court opens the possibility of reviving terminal development under extended deadlines—though activists warn of renewed campaigns to prevent coal transport through West Oakland
* As of July 1, 2025, The City may seek review of the Court of Appeal’s decision by the California Supreme Court.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250725015639/https://nocoalinoakland.info/city-loses-appeal-in-state-court-lawsuit/ City Loses Appeal in State Court Lawsuit. No Coal in Oakland. July 1, 2025.] </ref>


== Documents ==
== Documents ==

Latest revision as of 19:04, 25 July 2025

Better Intro

Background

In the early 2010s, developers unveiled plans to redevelop the Oakland Army Base as the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT), originally proposing transportation of low‑dust cargo like wind turbines or grain.[1] In the December 2013 Oakland Army Base newsletter, developer Phil Tagami promised not to export coal through the Oakland Bulk and Oversized terminal, writing:

"It has come to my attention that there are community concerns about a purported plan to develop a coal plant or coal distribution facility as part of the Oakland Global project. This is simply untrue. [...] CCIG is publicly on record as having no interest or involvement in the pursuit of coal-related operations at the former Oakland Army Base."[2]

Tagami made the same commitment in private meetings with the Sierra Club, elected officials, and others.

In 2015, it emerged that the terminal had quietly agreed to ship up to 10 million tons of coal per year through Oakland.[3] In response, the No Coal in Oakland movement formed, uniting local environmental justice groups (like the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project), labor unions (e.g. ILWU), health experts, youth activists, faith leaders, and groups such as Sierra Club, Communities for a Better Environment, Baykeeper, and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. They held massive hearings, protests, and rallies to demand that Oakland reject coal exports for the sake of public health, climate justice, and local jobs. By late June 2016, under community pressure, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban the handling, storage, and transport of coal (and petroleum coke) within the city (including the OBOT) citing risks to air quality, asthma, heart and respiratory disease, and environmental equity for West Oakland communities.

Since 2016, the movement against the coal terminal in Oakland has taken shape in the case Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland, in both state and federal courts. In both cases, the City of Oakland lost to OBOT, dealing a blow to the movement. However, activists have not given up and continue to be vocal in their opposition.

Activists opposed to a coal facility in Oakland rally outside U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Jan. 10, 2018. (Tara Siler/KQED)
From No Coal In Oakland, 5 organizers stand in front of the Oakland City Hall.

Litigation

2016-2020: Federal District Court

  • In December 2016, OBOT (Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal) sued Oakland alleging breach of the 2013 Development Agreement after the City passed an ordinance and resolution banning coal handling at the proposed terminal.[4]
  • A federal district court held a trial in January 2018 and concluded Oakland lacked “substantial evidence” to show the coal operation posed a significant health or safety risk. The court ruled that the City’s coal ban violated the Development Agreement and declared it invalid.[5][6]
  • On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, affirming the lower court’s standard of review and finding
A container ship docked in a berth at the Port of Oakland on Feb. 11, 2015, in Oakland. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

2018–2025: State Court (2018–2025)

  • After the federal decision, OBOT’s Ground Lease required the City and OBOT to hit specified development milestones by August 14, 2018. When the City terminated the lease for missing that deadline, OBOT (and its subtenant OGRE) sued in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming the City’s obstruction and the prior coal ban triggered force majeure rights and breached implied duties of good faith.
  • In the initial part of the trial, the liability phase in October 2023, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Noël Wise sided with the developers, finding the City liable for breach of contract. She concluded the City's delays and refusal to cooperate prevented OBOT from meeting its obligations and triggered six separate force majeure events, including passage of the coal ban itself, failure to execute a rail access agreement, and not completing public improvements.[7]
  • In January 2024, during the remedy phase, Judge Wise ruled against developers seeking nearly $160 million from the city, claiming lost profits after the city terminated its ground lease for the terminal. The judge instead agreed with attorneys for the city, who argued the group’s projected profits were speculative.[8]

June 2025: California Court of Appeal

  • The City appealed Judge Wise's decision. On June 27, 2025, the First Appellate District affirmed Judge Wise’s ruling.[9] The court rejected the City’s arguments regarding the force majeure clause, implied covenant limits, claim preclusion, and OGRE’s right to sue. It concluded OBOT and OGRE were entitled to relief, and that the lease termination was improper.[10]
  • The victory in court reopened the possibility of reviving terminal development for OBOT.
  • As of July 1, 2025, The City may seek review of the Court of Appeal’s decision by the California Supreme Court.[11][12]

No Coal In Oakland

According to their website, "No Coal in Oakland is a grassroots organization campaigning to stop the threat of coal being transported by rail into Oakland for export overseas".[13]

  • specific things that the movement did to organize people

see: https://nocoalinoakland.info/online-resources-for-researching-the-proposed-west-gateway-coal-terminal/

The activism against coal dust in Hampton Roads and the No Coal in Oakland campaign both center community-driven efforts to protect public health from the dangers of coal pollution. Like Hampton Roads, West Oakland has a disproportionately high rate of respiratory illness and other physical ailments, which is linked to its close proximity to the Port of Oakland, as well as truck and rail traffic.[14]

Documents

References

  1. ↑ Siler, T. (2018, January 16). Oakland, Port Developer Head to Trial in Dispute Over Coal Ban. Kqed.org; KQED. ‌
  2. ↑ Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.
  3. ↑ Wolfe, E. Oakland loses appeal in coal legal battle. The Oaklandside. June 30, 2025‌
  4. ↑ Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.
  5. ↑ Our Campaign. No Coal in Oakland. ‌2018.
  6. ↑ BondGraham, D. Judge Rules in Favor of Oakland Coal Project | East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda. East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda. May 15, 2018.
  7. ↑ Klein, J. Despite Trial Decision, Hope Remains to Keep Coal Out of Oakland. March 29, 2024.
  8. ↑ Johnson, S. Judge Denies Developer's $160 Million Suit Against Oakland in Ongoing Coal Terminal Battle. January 23, 2024.
  9. ↑ Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland. Justia Law. 2025.
  10. ↑ Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO. June 27, 2025.
  11. ↑ City Loses Appeal in State Court Lawsuit. No Coal in Oakland. July 1, 2025.
  12. ↑ Oakland Effort To Bloick Fossil-Fuel Exports Suffers Second Judicial Setback. 2020.
  13. ↑ Our Campaign. No Coal in Oakland. ‌2018.
  14. ↑ oaklandexplore. (2025, June 11). West Oakland Air Pollution Trends: 20 Years of Data, Health Impacts & Demographic Shifts - Oakland Explore. Oakland Explore.
Retrieved from "https://voicesinthedust.org/index.php?title=Oakland,_CA&oldid=1715"