Oakland, CA: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
[[File:5 peeps at city hall.jpg|thumb|421x421px|From [https://nocoalinoakland.info/our-campaign/ No Coal In Oakland], 5 organizers stand in front of the Oakland City Hall. ]] | |||
== Litigation == | == Litigation == | ||
| Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
* 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 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” | ||
* The court ruled that the City’s coal ban violated the Development Agreement and declared it invalid. | * 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> | ||
* 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 | ||
Revision as of 02:04, 25 July 2025
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).
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, 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.
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.
Litigation
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland (Case No. 16-CV-7014) (2016–2020)
- 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.[1]
- 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”
- The court ruled that the City’s coal ban violated the Development Agreement and declared it invalid.[2]
- On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, affirming the lower court’s standard of review and finding
State Court Litigation: OBOT/OGRE v. City of Oakland (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 No Coal in Oakland+2Justia Law+2No Coal in Oakland+2.
- 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)
- 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.[3]
- 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.[4]
Documents
- Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. Complaint 6. December 7, 2016.
- Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. Opening Brief of Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. December 10, 2018.
- Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law. March 15, 2018.
- Lora Jo Foo. Covers for rail transport of coal. June 2, 2016.
- Aker, G. RE: Expert Report of H. Nadia Moore, Ph.D., DABT, ERT in the matter of Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, Sierra Club and San Francisco Baykeeper. Case No. 3.16-cv-07014-VC. October 6, 2017.
- Fernandez-Pello, C. Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland Fire and Explosion Safety at the Proposed OBOT Facility. October 6, 2017.
- de Place, E. Northwest Coal Exports. November 2012.
- Health Concerns About Coal Export in the Northwest. PowerPastCoal.org. November 2013.
- Sahu, R. Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (Plaintiff) v. City of Oakland (Defendant) Expert Report of Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu. October 6 2017.
- Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (Plaintiff) v. City of Oakland (Defendant). Expert Report of Stephen M. Sullivan. October 6, 2017.
- Oakland Bult & Oversized Terminal, LLC, V. City of Oakland. Volume 1. May 15, 2018.
- Oakland Bult & Oversized Terminal, LLC, V. City of Oakland. SIERRA CLUB AND SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REPRESENTATION STATEMENT. June 19, 2018.
- Oakland Bult & Oversized Terminal, LLC, V. City of Oakland. Volume 3. January 03, 2018.
- Oakland Bult & Oversized Terminal, LLC, V. City of Oakland. Volume 4. February 16, 2017.
- Oakland City Council. Ordinance No 13385 C.M.S. July 20, 2016.
- Chafe, Z. Analysis of Health Impacts and Safety Risks and Other Issues/Concerns Related to the Transport, Handling, Transloading, and Storage of Coal and/or Petroleum Coke (Petcoke) in Oakland and at the Proposed Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal. June 22, 2016.
- Public Health Advisory Panel on Coal in Oakland. An Assessment of the Health and Safety Implications of Coal Transport through Oakland. June 14, 2016.
- Matier & Ross. Opponents of Oakland coal shipping target governor's pal. July 25, 2015.
- Oakland Army Base (OARB) Area Redevelopment Plan. City of Oakland. April 29, 2002.
- OAKLAND BULK & OVERSIZED TERMINAL, LLC v. CITY OF OAKLAND. APPELLANTS’ JOINT EXCERPTS OF RECORD.
- Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO. June 27, 2025.