Contrary to City of Oakland public statements after 2015, court documents and emails gathered by Zennie62Media reveal the following:
1. That the City of Oakland played a major role in the determination of coal as a market for the Insight Terminal Solutions Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal bulk terminal, and
2. The City of Oakland’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 Oakland did, indeed, know that coal was to be part of the Insight Terminal Solutions Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal commodity mix before 2015.
Here are some examples:
From the… “PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
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 Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal vs The City of Oakland, document dated February 9th, 2018 (Some names were adjusted for search engine optimization. For example, “City” means “City of Oakland”, so City of Oakland is spelled out):
PFF 3. In September 2008, a “Request for Proposals” process was initiated by the City of Oakland, pursuant to which a predecessor-in-interest of OBOT was selected to develop certain portions of the former OAB, including the “West Gateway.” Evidence: TX0372.0001-02 (July 14, 2009 Oakland City Council Agenda Report)
PFF 4. In 2009, the City of Oakland and a predecessor-in-interest to OBOT 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 Oakland . . . goals and priorities prior to the execution of a Lease Disposition and Development Agreement.” Evidence: TX0372.0001-02 (July 14, 2009 Oakland City Council Agenda Report)
PFF 5. Prologis CCIG Oakland Global, LLC and the City of Oakland (“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 OBOT “long-term certainty . . . concerning the project so that the project is successfully implemented and the benefits in the LDDA intended for [OBOT] and the City of Oakland are realized.” Evidence: TX0128.0002 (June 24, 2013 Oakland City Council Agenda Report)
PFF 7. The parties executed a Development Agreement Regarding the Property and Project Known As The Gateway Development / Oakland Global, dated July 16, 2013 (the “DA”). The DA is a binding, valid contract. Evidence: TX0584.0001 (DA)
PFF 9. OBOT has performed its obligations under the DA. Evidence: TX0141.0001 (Aug. 21, 2017 letter from City of Oakland to OBOT); Tr. 39:25-40:3, 40:10-19 (Patrick Cashman)
PFF 10. Pursuant to the LDDA and DA, OBOT 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 Oakland 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 Oakland of the bulk goods OBOT 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, OBOT shared with the City of Oakland 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 last item PFF 15 provides the smoking gun: it reads that the City of Oakland was told that the Insight Terminal Solutions Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal was planned to handle coal. Note that the City of Oakland 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 Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker says the City of Oakland was informed coal would be hauled by the OBOT.
The real question is when did the City of Oakland start the process of political coverup, and why? Why was the 2012 Tioga Group study (which also mentioned coal as a market for the OBOT) withheld from Phil Tagami? Mr. Tagami’s lawyers had to file a subpoena to obtain the report that’s presented here at Oakland News Now.