Oakland A’s Stadium Plan Beats Bid to Slow Environmental Review

The construction of a new baseball park for the Oakland Athletics can proceed on an expedited timeline for environmental review after a California appellate court on Tuesday dismissed an attempt by a group of shipping industry groups to delay the project.

Under a 2011 state law, Assembly Bill 900, projects can qualify for fast-tracked review procedures under California’s Environmental Quality Act if they meet certain conditions, including no additional net greenhouse gas emissions. The law was later amended to require the state’s governor to certify projects for expedited review by January 2020.

To help Oakland retain the baseball team after losing the NFL’s Raiders to Las Vegas and the NBA’s Golden State Warriors to San Francisco, lawmakers sought to facilitate a new stadium for the A’s in 2018. A proposed mixed-use facility at Oakland’s Howard Terminal site would include the new baseball park, residential and commercial developments, and public spaces.

Special legislation applicable solely to the stadium project, Assembly Bill 734, outlined the environmental standards the project must meet to proceed. The guidelines from AB 900 would also apply, to the extent they were applicable and didn’t conflict with specific requirements of the special statute.

Groups including the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom in March 2020, alleging his authority to certify the project for expedited review had expired in January 2020, as outlined in AB 900. The groups sought an order blocking the governor from certifying the project in the future.

Shortly after the suit was filed, the state’s Office of Planning and Research amended AB 900’s guidelines to state that the timeline described in the bill didn’t apply to the stadium project. The groups amended their complaint to challenge the agency’s authority to revive the expired certification power.

A trial court in Alameda County dismissed the challenge in January and Newsom approved the project in February 2021.

The California Court of Appeal, First District, declined to revive the challenge, finding AB 734 didn’t impose a deadline on Newsom’s approval of the project.

The text of the stadium law doesn’t contain any certification deadlines, but also doesn’t make lawmakers’ intentions clear, Justice Gabriel P. Sanchez wrote for the court. However, the legislative history indicates that lawmakers didn’t intend for the stadium project to be bound by deadlines specific to AB 900, Sanchez said.

Justices Jim Humes and Sandra L. Margulies joined the opinion.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and Chauvel & Glatt LLP represent the shipping groups. The Office of the California Attorney General represents Newsom.

The case is Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass’n v. Newsom, Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., No. A162001, 8/10/21.