Insight Terminal Solutions Bombshell 3: City Of Oakland Knew Coal Was In OBOT In 2011, Not 2015

(Last Updated On: August 27, 2019)

Insight Terminal Solutions Bulk and Oversized Terminal has been misrepresented.

Contrary to City of public statements after 2015, court documents and emails gathered by Zennie62Media reveal the following:

Video Thumbnail For Youtube Video Wmcfki3tu1c
The City of ’s Patrick Cashman

1. That the City of played a major role in the determination of coal as a market for the Insight Terminal Solutions Bulk and Oversized Terminal bulk terminal, and
2. The City of ’s representative, Patrick Cashman, admitted that there was never a concern specifically issued about coal at any time in the initial pre-development process, prior to the signing of the development agreement in 2013.

This is Insight Terminal Solutions Bombshell number three. In total, court documents report that the City of did, indeed, know that coal was to be part of the Insight Terminal Solutions Bulk and Oversized Terminal commodity mix before 2015.

Here are some examples:

The Court makes the following factual findings based upon the entirety of the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses that the Court finds to be credible:” …

As presented in the case of the Bulk and Oversized Terminal vs The City of , document dated February 9th, 2018 (Some names were adjusted for search engine optimization. For example, “City” means “City of ”, so City of is spelled out):

PFF 3. In September 2008, a “Request for Proposals” process was initiated by the City of , pursuant to which a predecessor-in-interest of was selected to develop certain portions of the former OAB, including the “West Gateway.” Evidence: TX0372.0001-02 (July 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Report)
PFF 4. In 2009, the City of and a predecessor-in-interest to entered into an “Exclusive Negotiating Agreement” for the purpose of permitting the parties to “explore and agree upon the final development and phasing plans, and all terms and conditions consistent with City of . . . goals and priorities prior to the execution of a Lease Disposition and Development Agreement.” Evidence: TX0372.0001-02 (July 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Report)
PFF 5. Prologis CCIG Global, LLC and the City of (“City”) entered into a Lease Disposition and Development Agreement dated December 4, 2012 (the “LDDA”). The LDDA is a binding, valid contract. Evidence: TX0065.0001 (LDDA); Tr. 32:20-24 (Patrick Cashman)
PFF 6. Following the execution of the LDDA, the parties negotiated a related “Development Agreement” which, among other things, was intended to provide “long-term certainty . . . concerning the project so that the project is successfully implemented and the benefits in the LDDA intended for [] and the City of are realized.” Evidence: TX0128.0002 (June 24, 2013 City Council Agenda Report)
PFF 7. The parties executed a Development Agreement Regarding the Property and Project Known As The Gateway Development / Global, dated July 16, 2013 (the “DA”). The DA is a binding, valid contract. Evidence: TX0584.0001 (DA)
PFF 9. has performed its obligations under the DA. Evidence: TX0141.0001 (Aug. 21, 2017 letter from City of to ); Tr. 39:25-40:3, 40:10-19 (Patrick Cashman)
PFF 10. Pursuant to the LDDA and DA, was granted the right to develop, use and operate a “Bulk Oversized Terminal” at the West Gateway, defined as a “ship-to-rail terminal designed for the export of non-containerized bulk goods and import of oversized or overweight cargo” (hereinafter, the “Terminal”). Evidence: TX0584.0008 (Recital H), .0017-0019 (§§ 2.1, 2.2), .0107 (Ex. D-2-2) (DA)
PFF 11. It was always contemplated that the Terminal would be a multi-commodity marine terminal. Evidence: Tr. 68:4-11 (Phil Tagami)
PFF 12. The City of never proposed placing limits on the types of bulk goods that could be shipped through the Terminal during negotiations of the DA. Evidence: Tr. 33:3-6 (Patrick Cashman)
PFF 13. There were no discussions between the parties regarding what commodities might be shipped from the Terminal under the DA during negotiations. Evidence: Tr. 44:19-21 (Ranelletti)
PFF 14. There were no discussions of a commodity-by-commodity review by the City of of the bulk goods may or may not ship through the Terminal during negotiations of the DA. Evidence: Tr. 282:11-21 (Marc McClure)
PFF 15. Prior to the execution of the DA, shared with the City of materials indicating that coal was one of the commodities that might be shipped through the Terminal. Evidence: Tr. 39:9-19 (Patrick Cashman); Tr. 70:16-22, 71:4-13 (Phil Tagami); TX1229.0007 (Oct. 2011 Kinder Morgan Presentation)

The City of Knew The Was To Handle Coal As Far Back As 2011, Not 2015

The last item PFF 15 provides the smoking gun: it reads that the City of was told that the Insight Terminal Solutions Bulk and Oversized Terminal was planned to handle coal. Note that the City of didn’t object to the possibility at that time. “Prior to the execution of the DA” points to the year 2011, as the Kinder Morgan Presentation is dated October, 2011. That’s a full five years ahead of 2015, the year City Attorney Barbara Parker says the City of was informed coal would be hauled by the .

The real question is when did the City of start the process of political coverup, and why? Why was the 2012 Tioga Group study (which also mentioned coal as a market for the ) withheld from Phil Tagami? Mr. Tagami’s lawyers had to file a subpoena to obtain the report that’s presented here at News Now.

Stay tuned.


By Zennie Abraham

Zennie62Media, Inc. CEO Zenophon Abraham AKA Zennie62 YouTube Zennie62 YouTube Partner, Oakland California blogger / vlogger Hire @Zennie62Media, Inc to tell your story.


Oakland News Now Recent Blog Posts

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!