By David DeBolt

May 10, 2016 - The City Council could vote next month on whether coal should be transported to a massive shipping terminal at the former Oakland Army Base -- and one councilman said Monday his mind is already made up.

"I am going to vote no on coal," Councilman Noel Gallo said. "I'm ready to vote on it now."

Gallo's comments came as the council held a public hearing on other fossil fuels that could be transported through the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, a $250 million global logistics center taking shape on the Outer Harbor.

A decision on transporting coal to the terminal could come at a special meeting called by Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan that is scheduled for June 27. The vote would be a first for the council since plans to transport coal surfaced last year.

The council in 2014 passed a resolution opposing the transportation of coal and crude oil through Oakland, but its 2013 agreement with developer Phil Tagami did not restrict coal or other commodities from being exported at the former base.

At the time, there was no mention of coal being shipped there. But since then, Tagami and Terminal Logistics Solutions have said it is a possibility, and the state of Utah in March passed a bill to invest $53 million of taxpayer money for a coal-shipping facility in Oakland.

Under the agreement with Tagami, the city could stop the coal transports if they were declared to be a health and safety hazard to residents living near the rail line.

Environmental groups and state Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Oakland, argue it would expose West Oakland residents to greater risks of respiratory illness. Hancock has proposed a bill, currently making its way through the Legislature, requiring a new environmental report on the transport of coal through Oakland.

Meanwhile, city officials have hired consulting group Environmental Science Associates to assist them in reviewing evidence submitted on the issue. At a hearing Monday, the city took comments on the possible health and safety impacts of transporting crude oil and gasoline through Oakland.

The council did not vote on the issue but will take comments on the matter until Monday at 5 p.m.

While environmental groups expressed concern about the dangers of train cars carrying fossil fuels, there was also worry that shifting the focus away from coal shipments could delay a vote on the coal issue. No one at Monday's meeting spoke in favor of shipping fossil fuels through Oakland.

"Expanding the range of commodities under review to cover myriad fossil fuel products, each with its own public health and safety risks, would delay resolution of the coal issue and bury coal opponents in a high-stakes battle to respond to a mountain of research by fossil fuel interests allegedly proving that each of their products poses no danger to human health or safety," Lora Jo Foo of No Coal in Oakland wrote in a letter to the city.

"We are fighting coal -- the clear and present danger facing Oakland."