(CN) — Governor Gavin Newsom had the authority to fast-track environmental review of a mixed-use development project at the Howard Terminal site near the Port of Oakland that would include a new ballpark for the Oakland A’s, an appeals court in California ruled Tuesday.
In 2018, Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 734 — special legislation that applies solely to the Howard Terminal project, which would include the ballpark as well as residential, commercial and recreational spaces. The law allows for expedited judicial review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act if the governor certifies that the project meets certain criteria. For example, the project is supposed to achieve LEED gold certification or comparable standards, greenhouse gas neutrality, reduce vehicle trips, and offer community benefits like job training, open spaces and affordable housing.
Newsom certified the project for streamlined environmental review on Feb. 11.
But a coalition of trade groups, including the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, Harbor Trucking Association, California Trucking Association and Schnitzer Steel Industries claimed the governor had missed the deadline to approve the project for such an expedited review.
The Alameda County Superior Court sided with Newsom and the City of Oakland. On Tuesday, the appeals court agreed, finding that AB 734 didn’t set a deadline for the governor to certify the project.
In his 33-page ruling, Judge Gabriel Sanchez wrote that it took the California Air Quality Board 16 months to determine that the project met the greenhouse gas requirements, and the governor couldn’t certify the project before that decision.
“Petitioners would have this Court conclude that the Legislature, after engaging in months of negotiation and amendments, enacted comprehensive single-project legislation that was doomed from its inception because CARB’s step in the process would alone exceed the one-year deadline for certification. We find such a construction inimical to the underlying purposes of Assembly Bill 734.”
Mike Jacob, vice president and general counsel of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, said the group was disappointed with the court’s decision and said the A’s “have yet to prove how their massive residential and commercial real estate development is compatible with the working waterfront, on land and on sea.”
“This ruling was issued despite the fact that the A’s clearly failed to meet the generous deadline set forth by the Legislature because the A’s struggled for months to provide evidence that their project would meet the minimum environmental requirements written in the law,” Jacob said in a statement Tuesday.
“From the beginning, the A’s have used their power and influence to try and create special processes for themselves that bypass the rules and flout deadlines that are vital to the protection of the waterfront,” Jacob added. “These special-interest measures short-cut the protections of our community and the environment as well as our economy; that is why local environmental leaders such as Save the Bay and the Sierra Club have expressed serious concerns about the A’s project along with those of us who do business and work at the Port of Oakland. Today’s ruling does not change the substantive standards that the A’s must meet under California’s environmental review statute.”
In February, following the publication of a draft environmental impact report for the project, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said: “The Howard Terminal ballpark requires the highest environmental standards while giving us an opportunity to expand our entertainment district near Jack London Square, increase housing, provide good jobs, and keep our beloved waterfront working.”
Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval also assured fans in April that the project would be “the most environmentally sustainable project of its kind in California history.”
A spokesperson for the A’s did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Tuesday night.
Even if the project ultimately passes environmental review, it may be impeded by other factors. Kaval announced in May that Major League Baseball instructed the team to explore other markets while it negotiated terms of the project with local officials and other stakeholders.
It is unclear where negotiations now stand, after the Oakland City Council approved a nonbinding plan for the project last month but Kaval said his organization was not happy with the terms.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Bay Area district attorney to face recall election April 15, 2024
